Any Benefit To Logical Partitions On A RAID 5 Array?

Mar 23, 2000

Hi all,

Quick question in setting up a 3-disk SQL 7.0 system - can anyone think of a benefit to segregating a single RAID 5 disk array into numerous logical partitions for separating out the OS, the database files and the transaction logs? I would assume performance would be unaffected (as the drives are acting as a single array for reads & writes anyway) so other than general organization what (if any) advantage would be gained over making a single large logical partition?

TIA
A

View 2 Replies


ADVERTISEMENT

Table Partitions & RAID 5.

Aug 28, 2007

Hi experts,

We have a huge table with around 250 million records and have implemented SQL server 2005's new table partitioning feature. Now the data seems to be evenly spread across 20 different filegroups ( each 5 GB approx ) for the same table that was occupying 100 GB itself in the PRIMARY filegroup earlier.

Still the query response times have not come down drastically but we could see a good improvement in the execution plans now.

WE ARE USING RAID 5 IN OUR PRODUCTION ENVIRONMENT. ANY IDEA / THOUGHT ON HOW TO PLACE THE PARTITIONED FILEGROUPS AND THE LOG FILES IN THE RAID 5 (BTW , I'm very new to RAID concepts , any detailed instruction would be helpful ).

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Hariarul

View 8 Replies View Related

Backup Db's To Raid 10 Array

Apr 28, 2003

I have a server setup with the standard recommended RAIS(10-5-10 setup (10 for the OS, 5 for the data, and 10 for the trans logs). Running out of space on my RAID 5. Have lots of extra space on my RAID 10 where my trans logs are. I currently dump my files to disk and then use tape to back them up. I have been putting these files on my RAID 5 array, but was going to move them to my RAID 10 array. Anyone seen any downside to doing this?

View 2 Replies View Related

Raid Array Failure/Rebuild SQL Won't Run

Aug 19, 2007

Background... Server raid failed, rebuilt raid ran chkdsk but now I am
unable to run SQL service.

I've tried to manually start service but receive the following message

The MSSQLSERVER service on the local computer started and then stopped. Some
services stop automatically if they have no work to do.

Here's all I have in the error logs

2007-08-19 10:56:39.98 server Microsoft SQL Server 2000 - 8.00.2039
(Intel X86)
May 3 2005 23:18:38
Copyright (c) 1988-2003 Microsoft Corporation
Developer Edition on Windows NT 5.2 (Build 3790: Service Pack 1)

2007-08-19 10:56:39.99 server Copyright (C) 1988-2002 Microsoft
Corporation.
2007-08-19 10:56:39.99 server All rights reserved.
2007-08-19 10:56:39.99 server Server Process ID is 1812.
2007-08-19 10:56:39.99 server Logging SQL Server messages in file
'f:MSSQLlogERRORLOG'.
2007-08-19 10:56:40.01 server SQL Server is starting at priority class
'normal'(2 CPUs detected).
2007-08-19 10:56:40.15 server SQL Server configured for thread mode
processing.
2007-08-19 10:56:40.18 server Using dynamic lock allocation. [2500] Lock
Blocks, [5000] Lock Owner Blocks.
2007-08-19 10:56:40.23 server Attempting to initialize Distributed
Transaction Coordinator.
2007-08-19 10:56:42.29 spid4 Starting up database 'master'.
2007-08-19 10:56:42.31 spid4 Error: 5172, Severity: 16, State: 15.
2007-08-19 10:56:42.31 spid4 Error: 5173, Severity: 16, State: 1.
2007-08-19 10:56:42.31 spid4 Error: 5180, Severity: 22, State: 1.

View 3 Replies View Related

SQL Server 2005 Partitions And SAN Array

Jul 3, 2007


I am looking for information/suggestions in regards to portioning data across a large SAN. The database is several TB in size, and we are looking to partition the data on a date so that the current data is always the fastest available and history can be set as read only but still be available.

If the server has 8 drive letters how can I ensure that the 4 data drives are stripped across the most physical drives for the most through-put??

Are there any specific questions I need to ask the server technicians?

Any pitfalls I should be aware off??

Thanks!!!

View 1 Replies View Related

Raid 5 Array - Large Or Small Stripe Size ???

Jun 14, 2001

HI There,

Generally speaking, is it better to use a large or small stripe size for a Raid 5 array (4 drives) ? I would appreciate any specifics also.

Thanks in advance.

Charlie

View 1 Replies View Related

SQL Server Databases On RAID 5 Or RAID 10

Apr 4, 2007

I am configuring a new database server, without SAN access, and want to know what is the best practice for SCSI RAID configuration. Do most folks prefer RAID 5 or RAID 10 configurations where their databases will reside?

View 8 Replies View Related

RAID 1 Or RAID 5 For Mdf Files?

Mar 27, 2008

I've always heard that RAID 5 (or better, RAID 10) is preferred for the actual database (mdf), but RAID 1 for logging.

If I have a dedicated physical volume for each, what's the performance hit for selecting RAID 1 for the MDF files? 3%, 20%, 200%?

Doing so (all RAID1) will allow me to have a separate physical volume for the TEMP database - that is heavily used by my app.

View 1 Replies View Related

RAID 5 Beats RAID 10

May 1, 2006

RAID 5 beats RAID 10Can I get some feedback on these results? We were having some seriousIO issues according to PerfMon so I really pushed for RAID 10. Theresults are not what I expected.I have 2 identical servers.Hardware:PowerEdge 28502 dual core dual core Xeon 2800 MHz4GB RAMController Cards: Perc4/DC (2 arrays), Perc4e/Di (1 array)PowerVault 220SEach Array consisted of 6-300 GB drives.Server 1 = Raid 103, 6-disk arraysServer 2 = Raid 5 (~838 GB each)3, 6-disk arrays (~1360 GB each)TestWinner% FasterSQL Server - UpdateRAID 513Heavy ETLRAID 516SQLIO - Rand WriteRAID 1040SQLIO - Rand ReadRAID 1030SQLIO - Seq WriteRAID 515SQLIO - Seq ReadRAID 5MixedDisktt - Seq WriteRAID 518Disktt - Seq ReadRAID 52000Disktt - Rand ReadRAID 562Pass Mark - mixedRAID 10VariesPass Mark -Simulate SQL ServerRAID 51%I have much more detail than this if anyone is interested.

View 13 Replies View Related

RS2005: Export To Excel Error: Destination Array Was Not Long Enough. Check DestIndex And Length, And The Array's Lower Bounds.

Jan 25, 2007

All,

I am using Reporting Services 2005. One of my reports is getting the following error when I try to export to Excel. It will export to .CSV though.

"Destination array was not long enough. Check destIndex and length, and the array's lower bounds."

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Please copy me at machelle.a.chandler@intel.com.

Machelle

View 10 Replies View Related

How Would I Send A String Array As A Integer Array?

Jun 25, 2007

I have a stored procedure that has a paramter that accepts a string of values. At the user interface, I use a StringBuilder to concatenate the values (2,4,34,35,etc.) I would send these value to the stored procedure. The problem is that the stored procedure doesn't allow it to be query with the parameter because the Fieldname, "Officer_UID" is an integer data type, which can't be query against parameter string type.
What would I need to do to convert it to an Integer array?
@OfficerIDs as varchar(200) 
Select Officer_UID From Officers Where Officer_UID in (@OfficerIDs)
 Thanks

View 5 Replies View Related

Benefit Of Multiple Databases?

Apr 11, 2007

Hi !



We're designing our data model, and have found that we have two groups of tables (about 10 tables in each group). The tables within each group are dependent, but the two groups are independent of eachother.



Now, our two choices are:

1. Put all tables into one database.

2. Put the two groups into two separate databases.



For simplicity, option 1 is the winner. However, my question is, will there be noticeable peformance benefits by using two databases? (In which case, option 2 will be the winner).



Thanks,

Martin

View 1 Replies View Related

Any Benefit From Filtering In Join Vs. The Where Clause?

Jul 29, 2005

Just curious. The exec plan is the same for both qry's, and they both show the same estimated row counts @ the point of question in the exec plan. The exec times are roughly the same, any variances I'm attributing to db load from other things going on, since any benefits of one over the other are not consistent from execution to execution. So is there any benefit to filtering in the join conditions vs. the where clause? My thinking was that by filtering earlier in the qry (when joining) as opposed to "waiting" to do it in the where clause, the rest of the qry after the join would inherently be dealing w/a smaller result set for the rest of it's execution, thus improving performance. After the exec plan checking I did, I guess I was wrong. Seems that Sql Server is intelligent about such filtering when analyzing the entire qry, and building its execution accordingly. The execution plan for both qry's showed the same where clause argument for the tables being joined.

Filtering in where clause....

Code:


select...
FromtProject p with (noLock)
jointProjectCall pc with (noLock) on P.ID = pc.project_id
jointStore S with (noLock) on pc.store_id = s.id
jointZip Z with (noLock) on Z.zip5 = s.zip5
jointManager M on M.ID = case ... end
leftjoin
(
selectprojectCall_RecNum as RecNum, sum(answer) as HoursUsed
fromtCall C
whereAnswer > 0 and question_id in (1, 2)
group by projectCall_Recnum
) as C on pc.recnum = c.recnum
wherepc.removed = 0
andp.cancelled = 0
andp.deleted = 0
ands.closed = 0
ands.deleted = 0
andyear(getDate()) between year(P.startDate) and year(P.expDate)



Filtering in joins...

Code:


select...
FromtProject p with (noLock)
jointProjectCall pc with (noLock) on P.ID = pc.project_id
and pc.removed = 0
and p.cancelled = 0
and p.deleted = 0
and year(getDate()) between year(P.startDate) and year(P.expDate)
jointStore S with (noLock) on pc.store_id = s.id
jointZip Z with (noLock) on Z.zip5 = s.zip5
and s.closed = 0
and s.deleted = 0
jointManager M on M.ID = case ... end
leftjoin
(
selectprojectCall_RecNum as RecNum, sum(answer) as HoursUsed
fromtCall C
whereAnswer > 0 and question_id in (1, 2)
group by projectCall_Recnum
) as C on pc.recnum = c.recnum

View 1 Replies View Related

What Is The Main Benefit Of Stored Procedures?

Jul 5, 2006

Hi, all here, I am having a question about stored procedures for data mining. What are the main benefits of stored procedures for data mining? (what stored procedures can do for data mining on sql server 2005? when they are useful for data mining?).

Could please any expert here give me any guidance for that? Thanks a lot in advance.

With best regards,

Yours sincerely,

View 3 Replies View Related

Will Buffer Pool Extensions Have Benefit If Already On SSDs?

Sep 24, 2015

I am reading about Buffer Pool Extensions, and how it stores data pages on media like an SSD, to speed up retrieval in future. Would this be useless if my mdf files are already on SSD media? At most, I envisage it meaning that instead of grabbing the data from the mdf, it would grab the data from the buffer pool extension drive, but if they are both on SSD's, I'm not sure of how much return I would see.

Has any user decided to use BPE when their data is already on SSD's, and have they noticed any improvement in these cases?

View 1 Replies View Related

Benefit Of Moving Master && TempDB To Diff HD

Jul 20, 2005

I am interested to hear if people think it would be a good idea to movethe Master & TempDB to a different HD.Here is my DB Server's set up:1. Processor: (1) AMD XP 28002. 1st HD (IDE 0) is the system & boot drive3. (3) SCSI HD make up a hardware RAID level 0 (striped withoutparity)solution - these striped drives are just for my working DBs4. (1) SCSI HD that's not doing anything.I want to put the Master & TempDB on the SCSI HD that's not doinganything. Would that be the best place for it for maximum performance orshould I put in the striped array. I am leaning more towards putting onthe SCSI HD that's not doing anything. What do you all think?Ed*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!

View 1 Replies View Related

Would This Scenario Benefit From SQL Server 2005 64bit?

Oct 2, 2007

We have an application where part of the database is used for searching products and is very processor intensive due to the number of permutations and calculation that are required. This section of the database is scaled out by using transactional replication so that the €œsearch€? load is removed from central database€™s daily operations.

Each €œsearch€? server can handle around 15,000 search an hour with SQL taking about 3 seconds to return the result in XML (the system has be optimised to squeeze out every last bit of performance). This is in a 32bit environment. One other point, which is probably relevant, is that the Search data only totals 500MB.

With the possibility of upgrading these severs in the near future would we see any performance benefits in going 64bit. I know we won€™t take advantage of increased memory access due to the size of the search data but is there any discernable performance advantage between 32bit v€™s 64 bit processors and SQL Server 2005 64Bit. Or should I stick with SQL Workgroups and 32bit processor and save on the Standard SQL licence?

Many thanks

View 5 Replies View Related

Registration Benefit Portal - Page Nopt Found

Jun 8, 2006

Hi, this text is taken from the FAQ and contains the same link the Registration email I received, which don't work (for me!). The link points to http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=52054. Does anyone else have this problem?

NOTE: You can directly access the Registration Benefit Portal without need of a first or second benefit e-mail€”as long as you have completed the registration process and use the same e-mail to login in to Passport at the benefit porta

View 1 Replies View Related

SQL/RAID

May 29, 2001

My SQL 7 is on RAID 5. Sometimes on non-peak hours, on RAID disks first
two lights ( from left ) are constantly on for hours. NT Task manager, nothing
unusual, SQL current activity - no running user processes. Isn't second light
on RAID comes on if any disk activity ( Read/Write ).

Suggestions are appreciated.

Thanks,
Ivan

View 2 Replies View Related

NT RAID /SQL

Sep 28, 1998

I`ve tried implementing NT Software Raid / Stripping with Parity
and am unable to stripe disc that are more than 2g and
use SQL. I have not found any info in technet. Any ideas! Thanks.

View 2 Replies View Related

RAID 5

Dec 20, 1998

Should one install RAID 5 for SQL Server or just use separate hard drives, one for the data and one for the transaction log?

View 4 Replies View Related

RAID

Apr 15, 2008

could any one tell me about the difference between RAID and SHARED DISK ARRAY

View 3 Replies View Related

Which Raid?

Jul 20, 2005

Hi,I was going to buy a server with Raid 1 as I thought that it meant that ifone of the two mirrored drives fail, you simply take it out and put a newone in. At which point presumably the hardware takes over and copies theother drive over to mirror it again.However, my sql server admin book, says raid 1 is bad, as it means you havelots of downtime, when recovering from a broken drive.Can anyone give me some advice on this? What is the best Raid to use whenyou are running SQL server on the server.ThanksJJ

View 1 Replies View Related

Raw Partitions

Jan 9, 2002

Does anyone have any statistics on the performance gains one can get using raw partitions. The database in question is very IO intensive and performs about 1,000,000 inserts/updates per select.

Thanks...

View 2 Replies View Related

Raid & Transaction Log ?

Sep 13, 2001

Im setting up a hardware raid 5 solution for one of our db servers. The data files will reside on the stripe. We dont realy want to raid more drives for the Transaction log if its not nessesary. If the drive with the log crashes is the data file for the database useless ?

View 1 Replies View Related

What Level Raid Is Best?

Nov 29, 2005

Hi guys,
On a new server with 4 disks, what level of raid is best to apply. In terms of what's important, I'd say speed is at the top of the list.

BJ

View 1 Replies View Related

Which Raid To Configure

Mar 17, 2004

Hello,
I run a small homw office. I am planning to purchase a dell powerdge 1750 server to install SQL server on that.
I am confused here about which RAID should I install on this server RAID 1 or RAID 5.
The dell customer rep could not tell me the advantages of installing only RAID 1 or only RAID 5 or installing both RAID 1 and RAID 5

View 7 Replies View Related

SAN RAID Setup

Jun 11, 2008

HI All,

I'm going to buy 1 IBM DS3400 SAN. I got 2 x SQL Servers
one for our ERP System other for Web

Physical Server are like this ATM

SQL1 (ERP) ( 3 RAID arrays)
-----

OS: 36GB (RAID 1)
DATA: 120GB (RAID 5)
Log : 15GB (RAID 5)
Backup:270GB (RAID 5)

SQL 2 (WEB) ( 2 RAID Arrays)
-----

OS: 120GB (RAID1)

Data/log/bak 569GB (RAID10) disk like this

DATA: 218gb

LOG:15gb

Backup: rest


So how do i raid the SAN and what sort of HDD i should buy?

View 2 Replies View Related

Dell Raid 0+1

Mar 18, 2006

I am recommending that we change our Raid Configuration on some of ourServers from Raid 5 to Raid 0+1; we are experiencing severe IObottlenecks.Our hardware guys are pushing back a bit. They claim that Dell has aweird implementation of 0+1 and told me something about one drivefilling up before it begins to write to the next. They claimed thatthis gets rid of most of the benefits of 0+1.I know that 0+1 is not as good as 10 for availability, fault tolerance,and rebuilding, but shouldn't the write throughput be about the same?Setup:Poweredge 2850Powervault 220SPerc 4/DC Controller 1Perc 4e/DI Controller 0

View 5 Replies View Related

Which Raid For SQL 2005

Jan 5, 2006

I have always used RAID 5 for my database apps.  I am wondering though is this the best solution.  I am purchasing a new server and deciding whether to go with  RAID 1 or RAID 5.  This server will support all our .NET Apps, SQL Server 2005, Reporting Services, and Integration Services.

Any Input?

View 4 Replies View Related

SQL Installed On Both Partitions

Oct 12, 1999

Please help!

I have a server that has SQL Server installed on both C and D drives. The SQL Server software is currently running from the C drive and the live databases and backups are stored on the D drive.

I need to have everything on the D drive. Is there an easy way to make the registry point to the D drive without reinstalling SQL Server? The software will needs to run from the D drive because the C drive is running out of disk space. I will also need to delete the whole C:mssql directory.

Thanks.

View 2 Replies View Related

Moving Partitions From One DB To Another

Jun 19, 2008

assuming that you have two databases, the OLTP db and the OLAP db (take not that both have the same structure -- archiving purposes)... using table partitioning, is there a way where we can move 1 partition from the OLTP db to the OLAP db???

i'm actually trying to use this example with both tables in the DB.. I tried to modify to use two databases but sql server is unable to move the partition...

ALTER TABLE [Production].[TransactionHistory]
SWITCH PARTITION 1
TO [Production].[TransactionHistoryArchive] PARTITION 2;

SlayerS_`BoxeR` + [ReD]NaDa

View 9 Replies View Related

Configurations For Partitions.

Aug 23, 2007

Hi experts,

In SQL Server 2005 database we have partitioned a very big table into 30 partitions each holding few million of records.

Im just curious to know whether there are some configuration related to processors or system hardware in order to benefit from partitioning ? (Ex : If we have multiple processors Whether they need be configured to do a parallel processing ? )

Any real time experience (other than referring links) would be really helpful for me.

Thanks in advance,

Hariarul

View 1 Replies View Related







Copyrights 2005-15 www.BigResource.com, All rights reserved