Optimal disk configuration for SQL

Optimal disk configuration for SQL
I think it is:
For datafiles (RAID10)
Stripe Element Size 8KB â' because page has 8 KB
Read Policy: No read Ahead (there is a choose beetwen read ahead i
adaptive read ahead)
Write Policy: Write Back (there is a choose beetwen Write Through i
Force Write Back)
For log files as above but RAID1sp napisaÅ?(a):
> Optimal disk configuration for SQL
> I think it is:
> For datafiles (RAID10)
> Stripe Element Size 8KB â' because page has 8 KB
> Read Policy: No read Ahead (there is a choose beetwen read ahead i
> adaptive read ahead)
> Write Policy: Write Back (there is a choose beetwen Write Through i
> Force Write Back)
>
> For log files as above but RAID1
what do you think about this configuration?|||I think that RAID5 is still sort of the default for the main database
for average conditions, because it is more efficient in the use of
disk, when you get up to four or more drives, and it may be better for
reads, and average tables in average databases do 99% reads.
But, most apps may have a few more actively written tables, which
might be best on a filegroup and/or database on a RAID10 drive
instead.
I'm having my conscious raised on a number of hardware and
configurations issues these days myself.
Josh
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 09:05:52 +0100, sp <kofa@.noemail.noemail> wrote:
>sp napisa?(a):
>> Optimal disk configuration for SQL
>> I think it is:
>> For datafiles (RAID10)
>> Stripe Element Size 8KB ? because page has 8 KB
>> Read Policy: No read Ahead (there is a choose beetwen read ahead i
>> adaptive read ahead)
>> Write Policy: Write Back (there is a choose beetwen Write Through i
>> Force Write Back)
>>
>> For log files as above but RAID1
>
>what do you think about this configuration?|||What is about Stripe Element Size in RAID 10 or 5 '
JXStern napisaÅ?(a):
> I think that RAID5 is still sort of the default for the main database
> for average conditions, because it is more efficient in the use of
> disk, when you get up to four or more drives, and it may be better for
> reads, and average tables in average databases do 99% reads.
> But, most apps may have a few more actively written tables, which
> might be best on a filegroup and/or database on a RAID10 drive
> instead.
> I'm having my conscious raised on a number of hardware and
> configurations issues these days myself.
> Josh
>
> On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 09:05:52 +0100, sp <kofa@.noemail.noemail> wrote:
>> sp napisa?(a):
>> Optimal disk configuration for SQL
>> I think it is:
>> For datafiles (RAID10)
>> Stripe Element Size 8KB â' because page has 8 KB
>> Read Policy: No read Ahead (there is a choose beetwen read ahead i
>> adaptive read ahead)
>> Write Policy: Write Back (there is a choose beetwen Write Through i
>> Force Write Back)
>>
>> For log files as above but RAID1
>> what do you think about this configuration?
>|||Hello KoFa,
The default Stripe Element Size for your hardware configuration is
recommanded. For example, in the Dell EMC white paper, it recommanded to
use the default size 128 blocks or 64 KB
Here are some article for you to refer:
http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/solutions/dell_emc_sap_bestpractice.pdf
http://forums.dantz.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Number=93175&page=0
Sincerely,
Wei Lu
Microsoft Online Community Support
==================================================
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
==================================================This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.|||Hi ,
How is everything going? Please feel free to let me know if you need any
assistance.
Sincerely,
Wei Lu
Microsoft Online Community Support
==================================================
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
==================================================This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.