hi everyone,
Am presenlty Testing the I/o performance on the new CX-500 San From Emc
And Hba From Emulex,The LUn Size is 1 TB and when doing the Testing
with SQlIO Tool with a I/o block size-8 i get 39.3
MB/sec for Random write requestes but when doing the same with Random
Read
requests i get 6.04 MB/sec as the output,the read/Write cache is
enabled with read cache set to 288 and write to 1198,We have a
sqlserver Oltp Enviroment with mostlty Read Intensive Operations , iam
wonering how can i increase the Read i/o ,The Lun design looks bad we
should have made smaller Luns and Shared the Data and Log Files among
them ,will i get any performance if i set read cache to low value or
turn off the read cache or should i recomend to rebuild the san design
to smaller chunks , i am not so well versed in san
design , what i want is best perfromance for my sql serverr IO ,Pls
Suggest
We Have Raid 10 On our San with 4D+4D Raid Group sets ,In this Situtation
what is the best Setting For the Read Cache for our Hba Emulex(2GB)
Thanks&Regards
Saradhi
Hi
Have you tried formatting the drives at OS level with cluster sizes of 64kb?
We found it made a big difference on IO performance.
--
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/
"Saradhi" <Saradhi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BC2A304B-BD87-4FB4-8B70-9A659753ABF9@.microsoft.com...
> hi everyone,
> Am presenlty Testing the I/o performance on the new CX-500 San From Emc
>
> And Hba From Emulex,The LUn Size is 1 TB and when doing the Testing
> with SQlIO Tool with a I/o block size-8 i get 39.3
> MB/sec for Random write requestes but when doing the same with Random
> Read
> requests i get 6.04 MB/sec as the output,the read/Write cache is
> enabled with read cache set to 288 and write to 1198,We have a
> sqlserver Oltp Enviroment with mostlty Read Intensive Operations , iam
> wonering how can i increase the Read i/o ,The Lun design looks bad we
> should have made smaller Luns and Shared the Data and Log Files among
> them ,will i get any performance if i set read cache to low value or
> turn off the read cache or should i recomend to rebuild the san design
> to smaller chunks , i am not so well versed in san
> design , what i want is best perfromance for my sql serverr IO ,Pls
> Suggest
> We Have Raid 10 On our San with 4D+4D Raid Group sets ,In this Situtation
> what is the best Setting For the Read Cache for our Hba Emulex(2GB)
>
> Thanks&Regards
> --
> Saradhi
|||i am not aware how to do it,can u provide me any link on it pls
Thanks®ards
Saradhi
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> Have you tried formatting the drives at OS level with cluster sizes of 64kb?
> We found it made a big difference on IO performance.
> --
> --
> 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/
> "Saradhi" <Saradhi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:BC2A304B-BD87-4FB4-8B70-9A659753ABF9@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Windows format.
From the command line
format <drive> /A:64K
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/
"Saradhi" <Saradhi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E1EE3130-876C-4BB7-8642-BB4E949361D2@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
>i am not aware how to do it,can u provide me any link on it pls
> Thanks®ards
> Saradhi
>
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
|||If we format The Default cluster size to 64 kb at the Os Level ,will it not
need to
Defragmentation of the Disk ,and should we go for a regular defrag of the
Dirve chaning it ,if we increase the Read cache will we get any performance
boost out of it , and make the cache to 50- 50 read and write
Thanks,
Saradhi
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Windows format.
> From the command line
> format <drive> /A:64K
> 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/
> "Saradhi" <Saradhi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E1EE3130-876C-4BB7-8642-BB4E949361D2@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||hi mike ,
i have asked my admin about this of formatting our drive with 64 k as us
said, he says we have set element size of 128 k in the cluster and we need
not formst the disk again in that situation is it true ,can u pls clarify my
doubt
Thanks®ards
Saradhi
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Windows format.
> From the command line
> format <drive> /A:64K
> 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/
> "Saradhi" <Saradhi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E1EE3130-876C-4BB7-8642-BB4E949361D2@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||You should format the drive using 64 KB allocation units. Yes, the SAN
element size, which is just the equivalent of the RAID stripe size, is 128
KB by default, but for a different purpose. The reason you want 64 KB AUs
at the Logical OS level is because it reduces the number of IOPS to get the
same amount of data plus SQL Server will execute asynchronous disk requests
by Extents, which are 8 x 8 KB data pages = 64 KB. It can also request up
to 2 Extents whenever it is attempting to execute Read-Ahead requests, which
is 128 KB, and would be 1 request but 2 IOPS if formatted as 64 KB AUs
versus 32 IOPS is formatted with the default 4 KB AUs. If the turnaround
time is about 10 to 20 milliseconds per IO request, a 16 fold increase in
transmission could be quite a windfall for performance.
However, and this has been debated, you may wish to format the separate
transaction log disks as 8 KB AUs as the transaction log is a serial process
that is not tied to Extents nor Read-Ahead operations. In this case,
aligning with the data page size would be preferable.
That being said, even though we have separated our Data files from TLog
file, and TempDB data from User DB data, we do dedicate and format SQL
Server database file drives all with 64 KB AUs and have increased our IO
throughput.
If you need to support a high levels of Read IOPS, buy more, smaller disks
for the SAN, increasing the spindle count. If you need to support high
levels of Write IOPS, then by more HBAs and a Multipath solution for your
server. EMC makes PowerPath; Veritas has Volume Manager. And there are
many other products on the market which will do the same task.
Finally, along with properly formatting your disks, you also need to
consider properly aligning your NTFS volumes with the SAN track sectors.
This can be done either on the SAN or on the OS. On the SAN, it is called a
LUN Offset. On the Win2K OS, you can use the Resource Kit DISKPAR tool to
"sector" align the partition before you format it. For Win2K3, if you are
pre-SP1, use the DISKPAR utility; if post-SP1, use the OS DISKPART tool.
The difference is that DISKPAR will ask you for the number of sectors to
offset for alignment, DISKPART will ask you for the number of bytes. What
you want is 64 sectors = 32,768 bytes.
Here's the reason, for many modern disks, tracks contain more than 63
sectors/track, but NTFS was created when they were just 63 sectors/track,
and reserves the first track as the MBR header; so, it is unusable by the
OS. When you partition, you will end up starting at sector number 64,
assuming each track only contains 63 sectors. However, consider what
happens if you really have 64 or more sectors/track. If you request 4 KB
chunks, you will request the first seven just fine, but on the eighth, you
will ask for 4 KB, but there will only be 3,584 bytes left on the track; so,
to fulfill your request for 4,096 bytes, the first 3,584 bytes will be read
from the current track, but the final 512 bytes (one sector) will be read
from the adjoining track. That means you will have to incur the additional
latency of the seek time to move the disk actuator from one track to the
next, the slowest operation of any but the latest disks. If you use 64 KB
AUs, you will incur this additional latency with each and every IO
operation.
Now, the proper alignment depends on the number of sectors/track the
particular disks used in your SAN; so, get this information from your
Storage team. However, it is typical that you will set this offset to 64
sectors (32,768 bytes) instead of the default 63 sectors.
Studies have shown improvements of 10% to 20% simply by properly configuring
your partitions. Granted, this will probably be easier to manage with the
LUN offsets from within the SAN, but I would at least ask if you need to
perform this operation or not.
Although different, there are similarities between Exchange and SQL Server;
so, sometimes KBs related to Exchange are pertinent for SQL Server as well.
This is the case here: disk IO is a sub-system issue, relevant to both
system software. The following TechNet article is worth taking a look at.
How to Align Exchange I/O with Storage Track Boundaries
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...8e98806e7.mspx
Hope this helps.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Saradhi" <Saradhi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B08F4FEA-438E-4B75-81EF-001F1D3B7752@.microsoft.com...
> hi mike ,
> i have asked my admin about this of formatting our drive with 64 k as us
> said, he says we have set element size of 128 k in the cluster and we need
> not formst the disk again in that situation is it true ,can u pls clarify
my[vbcol=seagreen]
> doubt
> Thanks®ards
> Saradhi
>
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
of[vbcol=seagreen]
Emc[vbcol=seagreen]
Random[vbcol=seagreen]
iam[vbcol=seagreen]
we[vbcol=seagreen]
among[vbcol=seagreen]
or[vbcol=seagreen]
design[vbcol=seagreen]
Emulex(2GB)[vbcol=seagreen]
Showing posts with label lun. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lun. Show all posts
Saturday, February 25, 2012
San Performace settings SQl Server
hi everyone,
Am presenlty Testing the I/o performance on the new CX-500 San From Emc
And Hba From Emulex,The LUn Size is 1 TB and when doing the Testing
with SQlIO Tool with a I/o block size-8 i get 39.3
MB/sec for Random write requestes but when doing the same with Random
Read
requests i get 6.04 MB/sec as the output,the read/Write cache is
enabled with read cache set to 288 and write to 1198,We have a
sqlserver Oltp Enviroment with mostlty Read Intensive Operations , iam
wonering how can i increase the Read i/o ,The Lun design looks bad we
should have made smaller Luns and Shared the Data and Log Files among
them ,will i get any performance if i set read cache to low value or
turn off the read cache or should i recomend to rebuild the san design
to smaller chunks , i am not so well versed in san
design , what i want is best perfromance for my sql serverr IO ,Pls
Suggest
Thanks,
SaradhiI will be beneficial if you spread the Data, T-Log and TempDB files
across mutilpe LUN's as opposed ot a single alrge LUN and additionally
invest in a 2nd HBA so you have multiple channels to the SAN.
If your environment is Read-intensive then logic would dictate biasing
the cache towards Read operations as opposed to Write, you might be
better making small adjustments and re-testing until yo ustrike a happy
medium.
ALI|||It will be beneficial if you spread the Data, T-Log and TempDB files
across multiple LUN's as opposed to a single large LUN and additionally
invest in a 2nd HBA so you have multiple channels to the SAN.
If you have tools to identify hot spindles then so much the better as
you can then try distributing the high-usage elements.
If your environment is Read-intensive then logic would dictate biasing
the cache towards Read operations as opposed to Write, you might be
better making small adjustments and re-testing until you strike a happy
medium.
ALI|||u had any performance increase by increasing the Read cache,Any Reads
Done will be checked In the sql Buffer cache else will go for a disk
read and ihave set the max server Memory to 12 gb out of 16, Does Read
cache in the
helps us in improving the Read I/o operations as i have read in some of
the postings in here not to go for Read cache but to turn off the read
cache and read ahead and use all for write cache ,As u suggesst should
i check the Io By
increasing the Read cache and check the stats
Thanks&Regards
saradhi
Am presenlty Testing the I/o performance on the new CX-500 San From Emc
And Hba From Emulex,The LUn Size is 1 TB and when doing the Testing
with SQlIO Tool with a I/o block size-8 i get 39.3
MB/sec for Random write requestes but when doing the same with Random
Read
requests i get 6.04 MB/sec as the output,the read/Write cache is
enabled with read cache set to 288 and write to 1198,We have a
sqlserver Oltp Enviroment with mostlty Read Intensive Operations , iam
wonering how can i increase the Read i/o ,The Lun design looks bad we
should have made smaller Luns and Shared the Data and Log Files among
them ,will i get any performance if i set read cache to low value or
turn off the read cache or should i recomend to rebuild the san design
to smaller chunks , i am not so well versed in san
design , what i want is best perfromance for my sql serverr IO ,Pls
Suggest
Thanks,
SaradhiI will be beneficial if you spread the Data, T-Log and TempDB files
across mutilpe LUN's as opposed ot a single alrge LUN and additionally
invest in a 2nd HBA so you have multiple channels to the SAN.
If your environment is Read-intensive then logic would dictate biasing
the cache towards Read operations as opposed to Write, you might be
better making small adjustments and re-testing until yo ustrike a happy
medium.
ALI|||It will be beneficial if you spread the Data, T-Log and TempDB files
across multiple LUN's as opposed to a single large LUN and additionally
invest in a 2nd HBA so you have multiple channels to the SAN.
If you have tools to identify hot spindles then so much the better as
you can then try distributing the high-usage elements.
If your environment is Read-intensive then logic would dictate biasing
the cache towards Read operations as opposed to Write, you might be
better making small adjustments and re-testing until you strike a happy
medium.
ALI|||u had any performance increase by increasing the Read cache,Any Reads
Done will be checked In the sql Buffer cache else will go for a disk
read and ihave set the max server Memory to 12 gb out of 16, Does Read
cache in the
helps us in improving the Read I/o operations as i have read in some of
the postings in here not to go for Read cache but to turn off the read
cache and read ahead and use all for write cache ,As u suggesst should
i check the Io By
increasing the Read cache and check the stats
Thanks&Regards
saradhi
SAN COnsiderations SQL Server
Hello All,
Looking at implimenting an enterprise SAN that will host approximately 17
applications (DB, Exchange etc...) and a LUN for storage of user data
(profiles etc...).
Approximately 40 TB or disk , effectively 20 due to a RAID 10 setup.
Any caveats with this setup?
The equipment is :
EMC CX3.
My main concern is that the disk real estate/LUN's dedicated to a given
server (SQL Server for instance) will have its own disk spindles/heads.
So if the Exchange Server is using the same SAN, but a different LUN, will
they share disk heads?
Your advice is warmly welocmed.
Tam.
you might want to have a look at this.
http://searchsqlserver.techtarget.com/tip/0,289483,sid87_gci1213487,00.html
I really don't think it is a good idea to hang write heavy applications like
Exchange and SQL off the same box.
Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Tam OShanter" <tam@.oshanter.com> wrote in message
news:c5J4h.53895$i62.51034@.fe12.news.easynews.com. ..
> Hello All,
> Looking at implimenting an enterprise SAN that will host approximately 17
> applications (DB, Exchange etc...) and a LUN for storage of user data
> (profiles etc...).
> Approximately 40 TB or disk , effectively 20 due to a RAID 10 setup.
> Any caveats with this setup?
> The equipment is :
> EMC CX3.
> My main concern is that the disk real estate/LUN's dedicated to a given
> server (SQL Server for instance) will have its own disk spindles/heads.
> So if the Exchange Server is using the same SAN, but a different LUN, will
> they share disk heads?
> Your advice is warmly welocmed.
> Tam.
>
>
>
|||I've built a cluster around the CX300 and its performance is terrible - the
internal scsi significantly out classed it.
The problem with the SAN's I've come into contact with is that they don't do
immediate writes very well, they are great at outstanding IO - the SQL
checkpoint process etc... but when it comes to writing to the transaction
log they fail miserably.
Writing the transaction log needs to be immediate, no outstanding IO is
allowed there so the SAN cannot handle the throughput.
Some background:
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson/archive/2006/09/22/1089.aspx
Always get one on trial and don't commit until you are absolutely sure it
will do what you want it to!
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson - technical commentary from a SQL
Server Consultant
http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials
"Tam OShanter" <tam@.oshanter.com> wrote in message
news:c5J4h.53895$i62.51034@.fe12.news.easynews.com. ..
> Hello All,
> Looking at implimenting an enterprise SAN that will host approximately 17
> applications (DB, Exchange etc...) and a LUN for storage of user data
> (profiles etc...).
> Approximately 40 TB or disk , effectively 20 due to a RAID 10 setup.
> Any caveats with this setup?
> The equipment is :
> EMC CX3.
> My main concern is that the disk real estate/LUN's dedicated to a given
> server (SQL Server for instance) will have its own disk spindles/heads.
> So if the Exchange Server is using the same SAN, but a different LUN, will
> they share disk heads?
> Your advice is warmly welocmed.
> Tam.
>
>
>
|||SAN is not a product; it's a class of storage technologies. How does a SAN
perform is totally dependent on how that SAN is configured. Any broad stroke
statement on SAN performance is bound to be inaccurate in general (may be
valid in some particlar cases).
> So if the Exchange Server is using the same SAN, but a different LUN, will
> they share disk heads?
That depends on how you configure the LUNs. In most decent sized SANs, it is
common for LUNs to share spindles. Sharing spindles doesn't necessarily mean
unacceptable performance. It may perform less well than not sharing any
spindles, but the performance may still be within the expected level for your
particular app.
Linchi
"Tam OShanter" wrote:
> Hello All,
> Looking at implimenting an enterprise SAN that will host approximately 17
> applications (DB, Exchange etc...) and a LUN for storage of user data
> (profiles etc...).
> Approximately 40 TB or disk , effectively 20 due to a RAID 10 setup.
> Any caveats with this setup?
> The equipment is :
> EMC CX3.
> My main concern is that the disk real estate/LUN's dedicated to a given
> server (SQL Server for instance) will have its own disk spindles/heads.
> So if the Exchange Server is using the same SAN, but a different LUN, will
> they share disk heads?
> Your advice is warmly welocmed.
> Tam.
>
>
>
Looking at implimenting an enterprise SAN that will host approximately 17
applications (DB, Exchange etc...) and a LUN for storage of user data
(profiles etc...).
Approximately 40 TB or disk , effectively 20 due to a RAID 10 setup.
Any caveats with this setup?
The equipment is :
EMC CX3.
My main concern is that the disk real estate/LUN's dedicated to a given
server (SQL Server for instance) will have its own disk spindles/heads.
So if the Exchange Server is using the same SAN, but a different LUN, will
they share disk heads?
Your advice is warmly welocmed.
Tam.
you might want to have a look at this.
http://searchsqlserver.techtarget.com/tip/0,289483,sid87_gci1213487,00.html
I really don't think it is a good idea to hang write heavy applications like
Exchange and SQL off the same box.
Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Tam OShanter" <tam@.oshanter.com> wrote in message
news:c5J4h.53895$i62.51034@.fe12.news.easynews.com. ..
> Hello All,
> Looking at implimenting an enterprise SAN that will host approximately 17
> applications (DB, Exchange etc...) and a LUN for storage of user data
> (profiles etc...).
> Approximately 40 TB or disk , effectively 20 due to a RAID 10 setup.
> Any caveats with this setup?
> The equipment is :
> EMC CX3.
> My main concern is that the disk real estate/LUN's dedicated to a given
> server (SQL Server for instance) will have its own disk spindles/heads.
> So if the Exchange Server is using the same SAN, but a different LUN, will
> they share disk heads?
> Your advice is warmly welocmed.
> Tam.
>
>
>
|||I've built a cluster around the CX300 and its performance is terrible - the
internal scsi significantly out classed it.
The problem with the SAN's I've come into contact with is that they don't do
immediate writes very well, they are great at outstanding IO - the SQL
checkpoint process etc... but when it comes to writing to the transaction
log they fail miserably.
Writing the transaction log needs to be immediate, no outstanding IO is
allowed there so the SAN cannot handle the throughput.
Some background:
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson/archive/2006/09/22/1089.aspx
Always get one on trial and don't commit until you are absolutely sure it
will do what you want it to!
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson - technical commentary from a SQL
Server Consultant
http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials
"Tam OShanter" <tam@.oshanter.com> wrote in message
news:c5J4h.53895$i62.51034@.fe12.news.easynews.com. ..
> Hello All,
> Looking at implimenting an enterprise SAN that will host approximately 17
> applications (DB, Exchange etc...) and a LUN for storage of user data
> (profiles etc...).
> Approximately 40 TB or disk , effectively 20 due to a RAID 10 setup.
> Any caveats with this setup?
> The equipment is :
> EMC CX3.
> My main concern is that the disk real estate/LUN's dedicated to a given
> server (SQL Server for instance) will have its own disk spindles/heads.
> So if the Exchange Server is using the same SAN, but a different LUN, will
> they share disk heads?
> Your advice is warmly welocmed.
> Tam.
>
>
>
|||SAN is not a product; it's a class of storage technologies. How does a SAN
perform is totally dependent on how that SAN is configured. Any broad stroke
statement on SAN performance is bound to be inaccurate in general (may be
valid in some particlar cases).
> So if the Exchange Server is using the same SAN, but a different LUN, will
> they share disk heads?
That depends on how you configure the LUNs. In most decent sized SANs, it is
common for LUNs to share spindles. Sharing spindles doesn't necessarily mean
unacceptable performance. It may perform less well than not sharing any
spindles, but the performance may still be within the expected level for your
particular app.
Linchi
"Tam OShanter" wrote:
> Hello All,
> Looking at implimenting an enterprise SAN that will host approximately 17
> applications (DB, Exchange etc...) and a LUN for storage of user data
> (profiles etc...).
> Approximately 40 TB or disk , effectively 20 due to a RAID 10 setup.
> Any caveats with this setup?
> The equipment is :
> EMC CX3.
> My main concern is that the disk real estate/LUN's dedicated to a given
> server (SQL Server for instance) will have its own disk spindles/heads.
> So if the Exchange Server is using the same SAN, but a different LUN, will
> they share disk heads?
> Your advice is warmly welocmed.
> Tam.
>
>
>
SAN COnsiderations SQL Server
Hello All,
Looking at implimenting an enterprise SAN that will host approximately 17
applications (DB, Exchange etc...) and a LUN for storage of user data
(profiles etc...).
Approximately 40 TB or disk , effectively 20 due to a RAID 10 setup.
Any caveats with this setup?
The equipment is :
EMC CX3.
My main concern is that the disk real estate/LUN's dedicated to a given
server (SQL Server for instance) will have its own disk spindles/heads.
So if the Exchange Server is using the same SAN, but a different LUN, will
they share disk heads?
Your advice is warmly welocmed.
Tam.Tam OShanter wrote:
> Hello All,
> Looking at implimenting an enterprise SAN that will host approximately 17
> applications (DB, Exchange etc...) and a LUN for storage of user data
> (profiles etc...).
> Approximately 40 TB or disk , effectively 20 due to a RAID 10 setup.
> Any caveats with this setup?
> The equipment is :
> EMC CX3.
> My main concern is that the disk real estate/LUN's dedicated to a given
> server (SQL Server for instance) will have its own disk spindles/heads.
> So if the Exchange Server is using the same SAN, but a different LUN, will
> they share disk heads?
> Your advice is warmly welocmed.
> Tam.
>
>
>
Hi
This group might not be the best place for your question and I think
you'll get a better reply if you contact the SAN vendor or post the
question in a SAN newsgroup. From your question it sounds like you are
missing some basic knowledge about how a SAN works...:-).
That being said, you will not share physical disks between different
LUNs in a SAN. Also you don't need to run all the disk on the same RAID
level, but you'd rather set the RAID level for each array based on the
usage of that array. For an array hosting an Exchange database, you'd
maybe set this up in RAID 5 because you need the space rather than the
better performance. For the SQL database and logfile, RAID10 is
generally a good choice but in some cases you could do with mdf's on
RAID 5 and ldf's on RAID10. That depends on the usage and load on your
server and only tests will show what's best for you.
Regards
Steen Schlter Persson
Database Administrator / System Administrator|||you might want to have a look at this.
http://searchsqlserver.techtarget.c...1213487,00.html
I really don't think it is a good idea to hang write heavy applications like
Exchange and SQL off the same box.
Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Tam OShanter" <tam@.oshanter.com> wrote in message
news:c5J4h.53895$i62.51034@.fe12.news.easynews.com...
> Hello All,
> Looking at implimenting an enterprise SAN that will host approximately 17
> applications (DB, Exchange etc...) and a LUN for storage of user data
> (profiles etc...).
> Approximately 40 TB or disk , effectively 20 due to a RAID 10 setup.
> Any caveats with this setup?
> The equipment is :
> EMC CX3.
> My main concern is that the disk real estate/LUN's dedicated to a given
> server (SQL Server for instance) will have its own disk spindles/heads.
> So if the Exchange Server is using the same SAN, but a different LUN, will
> they share disk heads?
> Your advice is warmly welocmed.
> Tam.
>
>
>|||I've built a cluster around the CX300 and its performance is terrible - the
internal scsi significantly out classed it.
The problem with the SAN's I've come into contact with is that they don't do
immediate writes very well, they are great at outstanding IO - the SQL
checkpoint process etc... but when it comes to writing to the transaction
log they fail miserably.
Writing the transaction log needs to be immediate, no outstanding IO is
allowed there so the SAN cannot handle the throughput.
Some background:
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyr...09/22/1089.aspx
Always get one on trial and don't commit until you are absolutely sure it
will do what you want it to!
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson - technical commentary from a SQL
Server Consultant
http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials
"Tam OShanter" <tam@.oshanter.com> wrote in message
news:c5J4h.53895$i62.51034@.fe12.news.easynews.com...
> Hello All,
> Looking at implimenting an enterprise SAN that will host approximately 17
> applications (DB, Exchange etc...) and a LUN for storage of user data
> (profiles etc...).
> Approximately 40 TB or disk , effectively 20 due to a RAID 10 setup.
> Any caveats with this setup?
> The equipment is :
> EMC CX3.
> My main concern is that the disk real estate/LUN's dedicated to a given
> server (SQL Server for instance) will have its own disk spindles/heads.
> So if the Exchange Server is using the same SAN, but a different LUN, will
> they share disk heads?
> Your advice is warmly welocmed.
> Tam.
>
>
>|||SAN is not a product; it's a class of storage technologies. How does a SAN
perform is totally dependent on how that SAN is configured. Any broad stroke
statement on SAN performance is bound to be inaccurate in general (may be
valid in some particlar cases).
> So if the Exchange Server is using the same SAN, but a different LUN, will
> they share disk heads?
That depends on how you configure the LUNs. In most decent sized SANs, it is
common for LUNs to share spindles. Sharing spindles doesn't necessarily mean
unacceptable performance. It may perform less well than not sharing any
spindles, but the performance may still be within the expected level for you
r
particular app.
Linchi
"Tam OShanter" wrote:
> Hello All,
> Looking at implimenting an enterprise SAN that will host approximately 17
> applications (DB, Exchange etc...) and a LUN for storage of user data
> (profiles etc...).
> Approximately 40 TB or disk , effectively 20 due to a RAID 10 setup.
> Any caveats with this setup?
> The equipment is :
> EMC CX3.
> My main concern is that the disk real estate/LUN's dedicated to a given
> server (SQL Server for instance) will have its own disk spindles/heads.
> So if the Exchange Server is using the same SAN, but a different LUN, will
> they share disk heads?
> Your advice is warmly welocmed.
> Tam.
>
>
>
Looking at implimenting an enterprise SAN that will host approximately 17
applications (DB, Exchange etc...) and a LUN for storage of user data
(profiles etc...).
Approximately 40 TB or disk , effectively 20 due to a RAID 10 setup.
Any caveats with this setup?
The equipment is :
EMC CX3.
My main concern is that the disk real estate/LUN's dedicated to a given
server (SQL Server for instance) will have its own disk spindles/heads.
So if the Exchange Server is using the same SAN, but a different LUN, will
they share disk heads?
Your advice is warmly welocmed.
Tam.Tam OShanter wrote:
> Hello All,
> Looking at implimenting an enterprise SAN that will host approximately 17
> applications (DB, Exchange etc...) and a LUN for storage of user data
> (profiles etc...).
> Approximately 40 TB or disk , effectively 20 due to a RAID 10 setup.
> Any caveats with this setup?
> The equipment is :
> EMC CX3.
> My main concern is that the disk real estate/LUN's dedicated to a given
> server (SQL Server for instance) will have its own disk spindles/heads.
> So if the Exchange Server is using the same SAN, but a different LUN, will
> they share disk heads?
> Your advice is warmly welocmed.
> Tam.
>
>
>
Hi
This group might not be the best place for your question and I think
you'll get a better reply if you contact the SAN vendor or post the
question in a SAN newsgroup. From your question it sounds like you are
missing some basic knowledge about how a SAN works...:-).
That being said, you will not share physical disks between different
LUNs in a SAN. Also you don't need to run all the disk on the same RAID
level, but you'd rather set the RAID level for each array based on the
usage of that array. For an array hosting an Exchange database, you'd
maybe set this up in RAID 5 because you need the space rather than the
better performance. For the SQL database and logfile, RAID10 is
generally a good choice but in some cases you could do with mdf's on
RAID 5 and ldf's on RAID10. That depends on the usage and load on your
server and only tests will show what's best for you.
Regards
Steen Schlter Persson
Database Administrator / System Administrator|||you might want to have a look at this.
http://searchsqlserver.techtarget.c...1213487,00.html
I really don't think it is a good idea to hang write heavy applications like
Exchange and SQL off the same box.
Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Tam OShanter" <tam@.oshanter.com> wrote in message
news:c5J4h.53895$i62.51034@.fe12.news.easynews.com...
> Hello All,
> Looking at implimenting an enterprise SAN that will host approximately 17
> applications (DB, Exchange etc...) and a LUN for storage of user data
> (profiles etc...).
> Approximately 40 TB or disk , effectively 20 due to a RAID 10 setup.
> Any caveats with this setup?
> The equipment is :
> EMC CX3.
> My main concern is that the disk real estate/LUN's dedicated to a given
> server (SQL Server for instance) will have its own disk spindles/heads.
> So if the Exchange Server is using the same SAN, but a different LUN, will
> they share disk heads?
> Your advice is warmly welocmed.
> Tam.
>
>
>|||I've built a cluster around the CX300 and its performance is terrible - the
internal scsi significantly out classed it.
The problem with the SAN's I've come into contact with is that they don't do
immediate writes very well, they are great at outstanding IO - the SQL
checkpoint process etc... but when it comes to writing to the transaction
log they fail miserably.
Writing the transaction log needs to be immediate, no outstanding IO is
allowed there so the SAN cannot handle the throughput.
Some background:
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyr...09/22/1089.aspx
Always get one on trial and don't commit until you are absolutely sure it
will do what you want it to!
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson - technical commentary from a SQL
Server Consultant
http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials
"Tam OShanter" <tam@.oshanter.com> wrote in message
news:c5J4h.53895$i62.51034@.fe12.news.easynews.com...
> Hello All,
> Looking at implimenting an enterprise SAN that will host approximately 17
> applications (DB, Exchange etc...) and a LUN for storage of user data
> (profiles etc...).
> Approximately 40 TB or disk , effectively 20 due to a RAID 10 setup.
> Any caveats with this setup?
> The equipment is :
> EMC CX3.
> My main concern is that the disk real estate/LUN's dedicated to a given
> server (SQL Server for instance) will have its own disk spindles/heads.
> So if the Exchange Server is using the same SAN, but a different LUN, will
> they share disk heads?
> Your advice is warmly welocmed.
> Tam.
>
>
>|||SAN is not a product; it's a class of storage technologies. How does a SAN
perform is totally dependent on how that SAN is configured. Any broad stroke
statement on SAN performance is bound to be inaccurate in general (may be
valid in some particlar cases).
> So if the Exchange Server is using the same SAN, but a different LUN, will
> they share disk heads?
That depends on how you configure the LUNs. In most decent sized SANs, it is
common for LUNs to share spindles. Sharing spindles doesn't necessarily mean
unacceptable performance. It may perform less well than not sharing any
spindles, but the performance may still be within the expected level for you
r
particular app.
Linchi
"Tam OShanter" wrote:
> Hello All,
> Looking at implimenting an enterprise SAN that will host approximately 17
> applications (DB, Exchange etc...) and a LUN for storage of user data
> (profiles etc...).
> Approximately 40 TB or disk , effectively 20 due to a RAID 10 setup.
> Any caveats with this setup?
> The equipment is :
> EMC CX3.
> My main concern is that the disk real estate/LUN's dedicated to a given
> server (SQL Server for instance) will have its own disk spindles/heads.
> So if the Exchange Server is using the same SAN, but a different LUN, will
> they share disk heads?
> Your advice is warmly welocmed.
> Tam.
>
>
>
SAN COnsiderations SQL Server
Hello All,
Looking at implimenting an enterprise SAN that will host approximately 17
applications (DB, Exchange etc...) and a LUN for storage of user data
(profiles etc...).
Approximately 40 TB or disk , effectively 20 due to a RAID 10 setup.
Any caveats with this setup?
The equipment is :
EMC CX3.
My main concern is that the disk real estate/LUN's dedicated to a given
server (SQL Server for instance) will have its own disk spindles/heads.
So if the Exchange Server is using the same SAN, but a different LUN, will
they share disk heads?
Your advice is warmly welocmed.
Tam.Tam OShanter wrote:
> Hello All,
> Looking at implimenting an enterprise SAN that will host approximately 17
> applications (DB, Exchange etc...) and a LUN for storage of user data
> (profiles etc...).
> Approximately 40 TB or disk , effectively 20 due to a RAID 10 setup.
> Any caveats with this setup?
> The equipment is :
> EMC CX3.
> My main concern is that the disk real estate/LUN's dedicated to a given
> server (SQL Server for instance) will have its own disk spindles/heads.
> So if the Exchange Server is using the same SAN, but a different LUN, will
> they share disk heads?
> Your advice is warmly welocmed.
> Tam.
>
>
>
Hi
This group might not be the best place for your question and I think
you'll get a better reply if you contact the SAN vendor or post the
question in a SAN newsgroup. From your question it sounds like you are
missing some basic knowledge about how a SAN works...:-).
That being said, you will not share physical disks between different
LUNs in a SAN. Also you don't need to run all the disk on the same RAID
level, but you'd rather set the RAID level for each array based on the
usage of that array. For an array hosting an Exchange database, you'd
maybe set this up in RAID 5 because you need the space rather than the
better performance. For the SQL database and logfile, RAID10 is
generally a good choice but in some cases you could do with mdf's on
RAID 5 and ldf's on RAID10. That depends on the usage and load on your
server and only tests will show what's best for you.
--
Regards
Steen Schlüter Persson
Database Administrator / System Administrator|||you might want to have a look at this.
http://searchsqlserver.techtarget.com/tip/0,289483,sid87_gci1213487,00.html
I really don't think it is a good idea to hang write heavy applications like
Exchange and SQL off the same box.
--
Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Tam OShanter" <tam@.oshanter.com> wrote in message
news:c5J4h.53895$i62.51034@.fe12.news.easynews.com...
> Hello All,
> Looking at implimenting an enterprise SAN that will host approximately 17
> applications (DB, Exchange etc...) and a LUN for storage of user data
> (profiles etc...).
> Approximately 40 TB or disk , effectively 20 due to a RAID 10 setup.
> Any caveats with this setup?
> The equipment is :
> EMC CX3.
> My main concern is that the disk real estate/LUN's dedicated to a given
> server (SQL Server for instance) will have its own disk spindles/heads.
> So if the Exchange Server is using the same SAN, but a different LUN, will
> they share disk heads?
> Your advice is warmly welocmed.
> Tam.
>
>
>|||I've built a cluster around the CX300 and its performance is terrible - the
internal scsi significantly out classed it.
The problem with the SAN's I've come into contact with is that they don't do
immediate writes very well, they are great at outstanding IO - the SQL
checkpoint process etc... but when it comes to writing to the transaction
log they fail miserably.
Writing the transaction log needs to be immediate, no outstanding IO is
allowed there so the SAN cannot handle the throughput.
Some background:
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson/archive/2006/09/22/1089.aspx
Always get one on trial and don't commit until you are absolutely sure it
will do what you want it to!
--
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson - technical commentary from a SQL
Server Consultant
http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials
"Tam OShanter" <tam@.oshanter.com> wrote in message
news:c5J4h.53895$i62.51034@.fe12.news.easynews.com...
> Hello All,
> Looking at implimenting an enterprise SAN that will host approximately 17
> applications (DB, Exchange etc...) and a LUN for storage of user data
> (profiles etc...).
> Approximately 40 TB or disk , effectively 20 due to a RAID 10 setup.
> Any caveats with this setup?
> The equipment is :
> EMC CX3.
> My main concern is that the disk real estate/LUN's dedicated to a given
> server (SQL Server for instance) will have its own disk spindles/heads.
> So if the Exchange Server is using the same SAN, but a different LUN, will
> they share disk heads?
> Your advice is warmly welocmed.
> Tam.
>
>
>|||SAN is not a product; it's a class of storage technologies. How does a SAN
perform is totally dependent on how that SAN is configured. Any broad stroke
statement on SAN performance is bound to be inaccurate in general (may be
valid in some particlar cases).
> So if the Exchange Server is using the same SAN, but a different LUN, will
> they share disk heads?
That depends on how you configure the LUNs. In most decent sized SANs, it is
common for LUNs to share spindles. Sharing spindles doesn't necessarily mean
unacceptable performance. It may perform less well than not sharing any
spindles, but the performance may still be within the expected level for your
particular app.
Linchi
"Tam OShanter" wrote:
> Hello All,
> Looking at implimenting an enterprise SAN that will host approximately 17
> applications (DB, Exchange etc...) and a LUN for storage of user data
> (profiles etc...).
> Approximately 40 TB or disk , effectively 20 due to a RAID 10 setup.
> Any caveats with this setup?
> The equipment is :
> EMC CX3.
> My main concern is that the disk real estate/LUN's dedicated to a given
> server (SQL Server for instance) will have its own disk spindles/heads.
> So if the Exchange Server is using the same SAN, but a different LUN, will
> they share disk heads?
> Your advice is warmly welocmed.
> Tam.
>
>
>
Looking at implimenting an enterprise SAN that will host approximately 17
applications (DB, Exchange etc...) and a LUN for storage of user data
(profiles etc...).
Approximately 40 TB or disk , effectively 20 due to a RAID 10 setup.
Any caveats with this setup?
The equipment is :
EMC CX3.
My main concern is that the disk real estate/LUN's dedicated to a given
server (SQL Server for instance) will have its own disk spindles/heads.
So if the Exchange Server is using the same SAN, but a different LUN, will
they share disk heads?
Your advice is warmly welocmed.
Tam.Tam OShanter wrote:
> Hello All,
> Looking at implimenting an enterprise SAN that will host approximately 17
> applications (DB, Exchange etc...) and a LUN for storage of user data
> (profiles etc...).
> Approximately 40 TB or disk , effectively 20 due to a RAID 10 setup.
> Any caveats with this setup?
> The equipment is :
> EMC CX3.
> My main concern is that the disk real estate/LUN's dedicated to a given
> server (SQL Server for instance) will have its own disk spindles/heads.
> So if the Exchange Server is using the same SAN, but a different LUN, will
> they share disk heads?
> Your advice is warmly welocmed.
> Tam.
>
>
>
Hi
This group might not be the best place for your question and I think
you'll get a better reply if you contact the SAN vendor or post the
question in a SAN newsgroup. From your question it sounds like you are
missing some basic knowledge about how a SAN works...:-).
That being said, you will not share physical disks between different
LUNs in a SAN. Also you don't need to run all the disk on the same RAID
level, but you'd rather set the RAID level for each array based on the
usage of that array. For an array hosting an Exchange database, you'd
maybe set this up in RAID 5 because you need the space rather than the
better performance. For the SQL database and logfile, RAID10 is
generally a good choice but in some cases you could do with mdf's on
RAID 5 and ldf's on RAID10. That depends on the usage and load on your
server and only tests will show what's best for you.
--
Regards
Steen Schlüter Persson
Database Administrator / System Administrator|||you might want to have a look at this.
http://searchsqlserver.techtarget.com/tip/0,289483,sid87_gci1213487,00.html
I really don't think it is a good idea to hang write heavy applications like
Exchange and SQL off the same box.
--
Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Tam OShanter" <tam@.oshanter.com> wrote in message
news:c5J4h.53895$i62.51034@.fe12.news.easynews.com...
> Hello All,
> Looking at implimenting an enterprise SAN that will host approximately 17
> applications (DB, Exchange etc...) and a LUN for storage of user data
> (profiles etc...).
> Approximately 40 TB or disk , effectively 20 due to a RAID 10 setup.
> Any caveats with this setup?
> The equipment is :
> EMC CX3.
> My main concern is that the disk real estate/LUN's dedicated to a given
> server (SQL Server for instance) will have its own disk spindles/heads.
> So if the Exchange Server is using the same SAN, but a different LUN, will
> they share disk heads?
> Your advice is warmly welocmed.
> Tam.
>
>
>|||I've built a cluster around the CX300 and its performance is terrible - the
internal scsi significantly out classed it.
The problem with the SAN's I've come into contact with is that they don't do
immediate writes very well, they are great at outstanding IO - the SQL
checkpoint process etc... but when it comes to writing to the transaction
log they fail miserably.
Writing the transaction log needs to be immediate, no outstanding IO is
allowed there so the SAN cannot handle the throughput.
Some background:
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson/archive/2006/09/22/1089.aspx
Always get one on trial and don't commit until you are absolutely sure it
will do what you want it to!
--
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson - technical commentary from a SQL
Server Consultant
http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials
"Tam OShanter" <tam@.oshanter.com> wrote in message
news:c5J4h.53895$i62.51034@.fe12.news.easynews.com...
> Hello All,
> Looking at implimenting an enterprise SAN that will host approximately 17
> applications (DB, Exchange etc...) and a LUN for storage of user data
> (profiles etc...).
> Approximately 40 TB or disk , effectively 20 due to a RAID 10 setup.
> Any caveats with this setup?
> The equipment is :
> EMC CX3.
> My main concern is that the disk real estate/LUN's dedicated to a given
> server (SQL Server for instance) will have its own disk spindles/heads.
> So if the Exchange Server is using the same SAN, but a different LUN, will
> they share disk heads?
> Your advice is warmly welocmed.
> Tam.
>
>
>|||SAN is not a product; it's a class of storage technologies. How does a SAN
perform is totally dependent on how that SAN is configured. Any broad stroke
statement on SAN performance is bound to be inaccurate in general (may be
valid in some particlar cases).
> So if the Exchange Server is using the same SAN, but a different LUN, will
> they share disk heads?
That depends on how you configure the LUNs. In most decent sized SANs, it is
common for LUNs to share spindles. Sharing spindles doesn't necessarily mean
unacceptable performance. It may perform less well than not sharing any
spindles, but the performance may still be within the expected level for your
particular app.
Linchi
"Tam OShanter" wrote:
> Hello All,
> Looking at implimenting an enterprise SAN that will host approximately 17
> applications (DB, Exchange etc...) and a LUN for storage of user data
> (profiles etc...).
> Approximately 40 TB or disk , effectively 20 due to a RAID 10 setup.
> Any caveats with this setup?
> The equipment is :
> EMC CX3.
> My main concern is that the disk real estate/LUN's dedicated to a given
> server (SQL Server for instance) will have its own disk spindles/heads.
> So if the Exchange Server is using the same SAN, but a different LUN, will
> they share disk heads?
> Your advice is warmly welocmed.
> Tam.
>
>
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)