disks when doing mirroirng

Hi,
I'm using SQL 2005 with 2 identical servers
I want to use Mirroring between the two.
I'll have on both SQL Engine, SSIS & Reporting services (no Analysis
services)
each server has 6 disks.
what is the best configuration of these disks ?
3 RAID1, 1 RAID1 + RAID5 ?
and where should i put things ?
e.g. OS, data files, log files, tempDB, reporting services, SSIS ..If all drives are the same size and type, for fault tolerance:
1- Mirror of two disks for OS and SQL Server
2- Create two mirrors (2 drives each) and then create a stripe with parity
between both mirrors (RAID 0). I will put the data and log files there.
This way, you can have 3 failed disks (one failed disk on each mirror) and
the system will still be online. Also RAID 0 will give you better performance.
Another option would be to create a RAID 5 with for the data and the files,
which will give you a good performance for reads (not as good for wites..)
and you will be having more space for storage for the data and the logs,
compared with the first option
"raviv762@.gmail.com" wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm using SQL 2005 with 2 identical servers
> I want to use Mirroring between the two.
> I'll have on both SQL Engine, SSIS & Reporting services (no Analysis
> services)
> each server has 6 disks.
>
> what is the best configuration of these disks ?
> 3 RAID1, 1 RAID1 + RAID5 ?
> and where should i put things ?
> e.g. OS, data files, log files, tempDB, reporting services, SSIS ..
>|||Is your database OLTP? ... if not, you can setup your server like this:
RAID 1 (2 disks) = Os
RAID 5 (4 disks) = Data and Log files
If your data is not static, then ...
RAID 1 = Os
RAID 1 = Data Files
RAID 1 = Log Files
Using this last config. you won't have a high availability option like
RAID 5 for your data but you'll have a better performance for your
transactions and log files...
Edgardo wrote:
> If all drives are the same size and type, for fault tolerance:
> 1- Mirror of two disks for OS and SQL Server
> 2- Create two mirrors (2 drives each) and then create a stripe with parity
> between both mirrors (RAID 0). I will put the data and log files there.
> This way, you can have 3 failed disks (one failed disk on each mirror) and
> the system will still be online. Also RAID 0 will give you better performance.
> Another option would be to create a RAID 5 with for the data and the files,
> which will give you a good performance for reads (not as good for wites..)
> and you will be having more space for storage for the data and the logs,
> compared with the first option
> "raviv762@.gmail.com" wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm using SQL 2005 with 2 identical servers
> > I want to use Mirroring between the two.
> > I'll have on both SQL Engine, SSIS & Reporting services (no Analysis
> > services)
> >
> > each server has 6 disks.
> >
> >
> > what is the best configuration of these disks ?
> > 3 RAID1, 1 RAID1 + RAID5 ?
> >
> > and where should i put things ?
> > e.g. OS, data files, log files, tempDB, reporting services, SSIS ..
> >
> >|||thanks for the quick answer.
some remarks and a question ...
1) i can not do RAID10 since my disks are not so big ... and i can not
buy bigger.
2) my data is not static, so i guess the second option is better.
the high availability will be supported by the mirroring between
servers so i'm relaxed on that.
do you have recomendation were to put the SSIS, Reporting services,
tempDB ?
jocamp3@.gmail.com wrote:
> Is your database OLTP? ... if not, you can setup your server like this:
> RAID 1 (2 disks) = Os
> RAID 5 (4 disks) = Data and Log files
> If your data is not static, then ...
> RAID 1 = Os
> RAID 1 = Data Files
> RAID 1 = Log Files
> Using this last config. you won't have a high availability option like
> RAID 5 for your data but you'll have a better performance for your
> transactions and log files...
>
> Edgardo wrote:
> > If all drives are the same size and type, for fault tolerance:
> >
> > 1- Mirror of two disks for OS and SQL Server
> > 2- Create two mirrors (2 drives each) and then create a stripe with parity
> > between both mirrors (RAID 0). I will put the data and log files there.
> >
> > This way, you can have 3 failed disks (one failed disk on each mirror) and
> > the system will still be online. Also RAID 0 will give you better performance.
> >
> > Another option would be to create a RAID 5 with for the data and the files,
> > which will give you a good performance for reads (not as good for wites..)
> > and you will be having more space for storage for the data and the logs,
> > compared with the first option
> >
> > "raviv762@.gmail.com" wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'm using SQL 2005 with 2 identical servers
> > > I want to use Mirroring between the two.
> > > I'll have on both SQL Engine, SSIS & Reporting services (no Analysis
> > > services)
> > >
> > > each server has 6 disks.
> > >
> > >
> > > what is the best configuration of these disks ?
> > > 3 RAID1, 1 RAID1 + RAID5 ?
> > >
> > > and where should i put things ?
> > > e.g. OS, data files, log files, tempDB, reporting services, SSIS ..
> > >
> > >sql

disks when doing mirroirng

Hi,
I'm using SQL 2005 with 2 identical servers
I want to use Mirroring between the two.
I'll have on both SQL Engine, SSIS & Reporting services (no Analysis
services)
each server has 6 disks.
what is the best configuration of these disks ?
3 RAID1, 1 RAID1 + RAID5 ?
and where should i put things ?
e.g. OS, data files, log files, tempDB, reporting services, SSIS ..
If all drives are the same size and type, for fault tolerance:
1- Mirror of two disks for OS and SQL Server
2- Create two mirrors (2 drives each) and then create a stripe with parity
between both mirrors (RAID 0). I will put the data and log files there.
This way, you can have 3 failed disks (one failed disk on each mirror) and
the system will still be online. Also RAID 0 will give you better performance.
Another option would be to create a RAID 5 with for the data and the files,
which will give you a good performance for reads (not as good for wites..)
and you will be having more space for storage for the data and the logs,
compared with the first option
"raviv762@.gmail.com" wrote:

> Hi,
> I'm using SQL 2005 with 2 identical servers
> I want to use Mirroring between the two.
> I'll have on both SQL Engine, SSIS & Reporting services (no Analysis
> services)
> each server has 6 disks.
>
> what is the best configuration of these disks ?
> 3 RAID1, 1 RAID1 + RAID5 ?
> and where should i put things ?
> e.g. OS, data files, log files, tempDB, reporting services, SSIS ..
>

disks when doing mirroirng

Hi,
I'm using SQL 2005 with 2 identical servers
I want to use Mirroring between the two.
I'll have on both SQL Engine, SSIS & Reporting services (no Analysis
services)
each server has 6 disks.
what is the best configuration of these disks ?
3 RAID1, 1 RAID1 + RAID5 ?
and where should i put things ?
e.g. OS, data files, log files, tempDB, reporting services, SSIS ..If all drives are the same size and type, for fault tolerance:
1- Mirror of two disks for OS and SQL Server
2- Create two mirrors (2 drives each) and then create a stripe with parity
between both mirrors (RAID 0). I will put the data and log files there.
This way, you can have 3 failed disks (one failed disk on each mirror) and
the system will still be online. Also RAID 0 will give you better performanc
e.
Another option would be to create a RAID 5 with for the data and the files,
which will give you a good performance for reads (not as good for wites..)
and you will be having more space for storage for the data and the logs,
compared with the first option
"raviv762@.gmail.com" wrote:

> Hi,
> I'm using SQL 2005 with 2 identical servers
> I want to use Mirroring between the two.
> I'll have on both SQL Engine, SSIS & Reporting services (no Analysis
> services)
> each server has 6 disks.
>
> what is the best configuration of these disks ?
> 3 RAID1, 1 RAID1 + RAID5 ?
> and where should i put things ?
> e.g. OS, data files, log files, tempDB, reporting services, SSIS ..
>|||Is your database OLTP? ... if not, you can setup your server like this:
RAID 1 (2 disks) = Os
RAID 5 (4 disks) = Data and Log files
If your data is not static, then ...
RAID 1 = Os
RAID 1 = Data Files
RAID 1 = Log Files
Using this last config. you won't have a high availability option like
RAID 5 for your data but you'll have a better performance for your
transactions and log files...
Edgardo wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> If all drives are the same size and type, for fault tolerance:
> 1- Mirror of two disks for OS and SQL Server
> 2- Create two mirrors (2 drives each) and then create a stripe with parity
> between both mirrors (RAID 0). I will put the data and log files there.
> This way, you can have 3 failed disks (one failed disk on each mirror) and
> the system will still be online. Also RAID 0 will give you better performa
nce.
> Another option would be to create a RAID 5 with for the data and the files
,
> which will give you a good performance for reads (not as good for wites..)
> and you will be having more space for storage for the data and the logs,
> compared with the first option
> "raviv762@.gmail.com" wrote:
>|||thanks for the quick answer.
some remarks and a question ...
1) i can not do RAID10 since my disks are not so big ... and i can not
buy bigger.
2) my data is not static, so i guess the second option is better.
the high availability will be supported by the mirroring between
servers so i'm relaxed on that.
do you have recomendation were to put the SSIS, Reporting services,
tempDB ?
jocamp3@.gmail.com wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Is your database OLTP? ... if not, you can setup your server like this:
> RAID 1 (2 disks) = Os
> RAID 5 (4 disks) = Data and Log files
> If your data is not static, then ...
> RAID 1 = Os
> RAID 1 = Data Files
> RAID 1 = Log Files
> Using this last config. you won't have a high availability option like
> RAID 5 for your data but you'll have a better performance for your
> transactions and log files...
>
> Edgardo wrote:

Disc space puzzle

I have the same large database on two different machines. Tables are
identical and data is almost the same (one is slighly more up-to-date,
'sp_spaceused' shows a size difference of less than 10%). On one server (DELL
Poweredge server) the data files are 15.7 GB (.ldf) and 9 GB (.mdf), while on
the other (DELL Dimension workstation) the files are only 8.2 BG and 2 GB.
Can hardware make such an important difference? Or am I possibly missing
something? (Both machines run Win2k SP4 with NTFS)Hi Ken Abe,
Check data 'file growth' under database properties if it is by percent or by
mega bytes (Right Click On DB Name-->Properties-->Data Files - Trasnactions
Log --> File Growth).
Also, you might try to 'shrink' the database on DELL Poweredge server(the
bigger one) and remove spaces from the file (fast way to shrink the db, Right
Click On DB Name-->All Tasks --> Shrink Database).
Mario Aoun
"Ken Abe" wrote:
> I have the same large database on two different machines. Tables are
> identical and data is almost the same (one is slighly more up-to-date,
> 'sp_spaceused' shows a size difference of less than 10%). On one server (DELL
> Poweredge server) the data files are 15.7 GB (.ldf) and 9 GB (.mdf), while on
> the other (DELL Dimension workstation) the files are only 8.2 BG and 2 GB.
> Can hardware make such an important difference? Or am I possibly missing
> something? (Both machines run Win2k SP4 with NTFS)
>|||Hi
Hardware does not make a difference. The Databases might have grown some
time in the past becuase a large batch operation was done.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Ken Abe" wrote:
> I have the same large database on two different machines. Tables are
> identical and data is almost the same (one is slighly more up-to-date,
> 'sp_spaceused' shows a size difference of less than 10%). On one server (DELL
> Poweredge server) the data files are 15.7 GB (.ldf) and 9 GB (.mdf), while on
> the other (DELL Dimension workstation) the files are only 8.2 BG and 2 GB.
> Can hardware make such an important difference? Or am I possibly missing
> something? (Both machines run Win2k SP4 with NTFS)
>|||Thank you Gentlemen. Shrinking worked.
"Ken Abe" wrote:
> I have the same large database on two different machines. Tables are
> identical and data is almost the same (one is slighly more up-to-date,
> 'sp_spaceused' shows a size difference of less than 10%). On one server (DELL
> Poweredge server) the data files are 15.7 GB (.ldf) and 9 GB (.mdf), while on
> the other (DELL Dimension workstation) the files are only 8.2 BG and 2 GB.
> Can hardware make such an important difference? Or am I possibly missing
> something? (Both machines run Win2k SP4 with NTFS)
>