Would creating a large (14drive/2buses) physcial RAID 1+0 array with
appropriate sized LUNs be acceptable for the quorum, tempdb, ms-dtc, and sql
tlog shared resources?
Or would individual mirrored drives defined as LUNs be better?
Thanks,
Randy Geyer
With SQL 2000 you don't separate tempdb anymore.
If you use MSDTC that should be on it's own disk - if you don't use it for
any applications - don't install/configure it. SQL does not require it.
The Quorum and T-Logs should be on RAID 1 LUNs. Separate one of course.
Your databases can go on RAID 5 or 1+0 nicely.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"Randy" <Randy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C63B0B49-2C70-4489-B38B-94C90343660B@.microsoft.com...
> What's the best physical drive configuration for a SQL cluster on a SAN?
> Would creating a large (14drive/2buses) physcial RAID 1+0 array with
> appropriate sized LUNs be acceptable for the quorum, tempdb, ms-dtc, and
> sql
> tlog shared resources?
> Or would individual mirrored drives defined as LUNs be better?
> Thanks,
> Randy Geyer
|||I would think there's no harm in putting tempdb on its own disk and still
many benefits as it's often the most active DB on a SQL box especially in
terms of writes (in which case the more spindles in the LUN the better).
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
message news:umcOjf10EHA.2608@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> With SQL 2000 you don't separate tempdb anymore.
> If you use MSDTC that should be on it's own disk - if you don't use it for
> any applications - don't install/configure it. SQL does not require it.
> The Quorum and T-Logs should be on RAID 1 LUNs. Separate one of course.
> Your databases can go on RAID 5 or 1+0 nicely.
> Cheers,
> Rod
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
> http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
> "Randy" <Randy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C63B0B49-2C70-4489-B38B-94C90343660B@.microsoft.com...
>
|||Years ago Tempdb could be put into RAM. Microsoft took this feature away
cause too many customers were not getting a benefit from it, they actually
had worse performance. While you can indeed move Tempdb, you have to
understand if your application(s) will really benefit. If you move it to the
SAN on different LUN's, are they really different SAN disks or just
different parts of the same SAN disks.
So, if your application(s) will benefit, will the SAN disks really be
different disks? If yes to both, I say go for it. In most cases, one or more
answers are no, so don't move it.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"Mike Hodgson" <mwh_junk@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eenXBI30EHA.1740@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>I would think there's no harm in putting tempdb on its own disk and still
>many benefits as it's often the most active DB on a SQL box especially in
>terms of writes (in which case the more spindles in the LUN the better).
> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
> message news:umcOjf10EHA.2608@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>
|||Agreed.
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
message news:uz$vmU30EHA.3336@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Years ago Tempdb could be put into RAM. Microsoft took this feature away
> cause too many customers were not getting a benefit from it, they actually
> had worse performance. While you can indeed move Tempdb, you have to
> understand if your application(s) will really benefit. If you move it to
> the SAN on different LUN's, are they really different SAN disks or just
> different parts of the same SAN disks.
> So, if your application(s) will benefit, will the SAN disks really be
> different disks? If yes to both, I say go for it. In most cases, one or
> more answers are no, so don't move it.
> Cheers,
> Rod
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
> http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
> "Mike Hodgson" <mwh_junk@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eenXBI30EHA.1740@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>
|||Running RAID-10 (0+1/1+0) for all drives will be a better benefit than
RAID-5, far outweighing TempDb on a separate drive.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
message news:uz$vmU30EHA.3336@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Years ago Tempdb could be put into RAM. Microsoft took this feature away
> cause too many customers were not getting a benefit from it, they actually
> had worse performance. While you can indeed move Tempdb, you have to
> understand if your application(s) will really benefit. If you move it to
the
> SAN on different LUN's, are they really different SAN disks or just
> different parts of the same SAN disks.
> So, if your application(s) will benefit, will the SAN disks really be
> different disks? If yes to both, I say go for it. In most cases, one or
more[vbcol=seagreen]
> answers are no, so don't move it.
> Cheers,
> Rod
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
> http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
> "Mike Hodgson" <mwh_junk@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eenXBI30EHA.1740@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
SAN?[vbcol=seagreen]
and
>
|||If the availability of disk space is first priority, try
creating 2 arrays: one containing RAID 5 LUNs, and the
other containing RAID 0+1 LUNs. Then plan the LUN
allocated for data and install on RAID 5 LUN while
transaction log on 0+1 LUN. ^^
Regards,
Alfred XYZ
>--Original Message--
>Running RAID-10 (0+1/1+0) for all drives will be a better
benefit than
>RAID-5, far outweighing TempDb on a separate drive.
>Regards
>--
>Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>Zurich, Switzerland
>IM: mike@.epprecht.net
>MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
>Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
>"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-
america.com> wrote in[vbcol=seagreen]
>message news:uz$vmU30EHA.3336@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
this feature away[vbcol=seagreen]
from it, they actually[vbcol=seagreen]
Tempdb, you have to[vbcol=seagreen]
If you move it to[vbcol=seagreen]
>the
disks or just[vbcol=seagreen]
disks really be[vbcol=seagreen]
most cases, one or[vbcol=seagreen]
>more
own disk and still[vbcol=seagreen]
SQL box especially in[vbcol=seagreen]
the LUN the better).[vbcol=seagreen]
america.com> wrote in[vbcol=seagreen]
if you don't use it[vbcol=seagreen]
SQL does not require[vbcol=seagreen]
Separate one of course.[vbcol=seagreen]
message[vbcol=seagreen]
94C90343660B@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
SQL cluster on a[vbcol=seagreen]
>SAN?
RAID 1+0 array with[vbcol=seagreen]
quorum, tempdb, ms-dtc,[vbcol=seagreen]
>and
be better?
>
>.
>
|||Use RAID 5 on read-only volumes. Any disk volume that does more than 10 percent writes is not a good candidate for RAID 5.
Use RAID 10 whenever the array experiences more than 10 percent writes.
In general, for OLTP systems, RAID 10 is the best for data + logs.
Regarding the original qs - as many have already answered -- have seperate luns for Quorum, msdtc, sql data, sql Tlogs, SQL backups etc. One huge lun is not recommended for high availability.
Best Regards,
Uttam Parui
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Are you secure? For information about the Strategic Technology Protection Program and to order your FREE Security Tool Kit, please visit http://www.microsoft.com/security.
Microsoft highly recommends that users with Internet access update their Microsoft software to better protect against viruses and security vulnerabilities. The easiest way to do this is to visit the following websites:
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
http://www.microsoft.com/security/guidance/default.mspx
|||Thank you Uttam. You came very close to answering my original qs.
My question is: I'd like to create a large physical raid 1+0 array with 12
physical drives on the SAN. Then, partition that array into several LUNs for
the shared resources (quorum, logs, ms-dtc, etc). Space is not an issue. Is
that configuration more performant than individual RAID 1 arrays with 2
drives each for each shared resource?
Thanks! - rg
"Uttam Parui[MS]" wrote:
> Use RAID 5 on read-only volumes. Any disk volume that does more than 10 percent writes is not a good candidate for RAID 5.
> Use RAID 10 whenever the array experiences more than 10 percent writes.
> In general, for OLTP systems, RAID 10 is the best for data + logs.
> Regarding the original qs - as many have already answered -- have seperate luns for Quorum, msdtc, sql data, sql Tlogs, SQL backups etc. One huge lun is not recommended for high availability.
> Best Regards,
> Uttam Parui
> Microsoft Corporation
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
> Are you secure? For information about the Strategic Technology Protection Program and to order your FREE Security Tool Kit, please visit http://www.microsoft.com/security.
> Microsoft highly recommends that users with Internet access update their Microsoft software to better protect against viruses and security vulnerabilities. The easiest way to do this is to visit the following websites:
> http://www.microsoft.com/protect
> http://www.microsoft.com/security/guidance/default.mspx
>
>
|||Your partitioning of the array into several LUNs must be transparent to the
OS, and the LUNs should be presented to the OS as separate SCSI (SCSI on
Fibre) devices.
In general, it may perform better. But it depends a lot on the ability of
the SAN to handle a mixed I/O workload. For certain SAN with large and
layered cache, mixing sequential log I/Os with random data I/Os may not have
as big an adverse impact on the performance as it does with some other
storage devices. But it is not advisable to share data files and log files
on the same spindles for disaster recovery reasons.
Linchi
"Randy" <Randy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:ADF19E59-3ACF-43AF-917B-7308D773BE62@.microsoft.com...
> Thank you Uttam. You came very close to answering my original qs.
> My question is: I'd like to create a large physical raid 1+0 array with
12
> physical drives on the SAN. Then, partition that array into several LUNs
for
> the shared resources (quorum, logs, ms-dtc, etc). Space is not an issue.
Is[vbcol=seagreen]
> that configuration more performant than individual RAID 1 arrays with 2
> drives each for each shared resource?
> Thanks! - rg
> "Uttam Parui[MS]" wrote:
percent writes is not a good candidate for RAID 5.[vbcol=seagreen]
seperate luns for Quorum, msdtc, sql data, sql Tlogs, SQL backups etc. One
huge lun is not recommended for high availability.[vbcol=seagreen]
rights.[vbcol=seagreen]
Protection Program and to order your FREE Security Tool Kit, please visit
http://www.microsoft.com/security.[vbcol=seagreen]
Microsoft software to better protect against viruses and security
vulnerabilities. The easiest way to do this is to visit the following
websites:[vbcol=seagreen]
No comments:
Post a Comment