SQL Server Performance
  1. alexbuil New Member

    Hi

    We want to move our SQL2K CRM database to our new HP MSA1000 Smart Array. We have 14x72GB disks and will use RAID 1+0. DB size is about 100GB but growing 20% every year

    After reading different sources we know that we should separate Logfiles and Tempdb into diferent LUNs. Let's say that we can use 9 disks for data and index. CRM vendor recommends to separate big tables and nonclustered indices from the rest.

    My doubt is how to configure the smart array for index and data, should we create one big LUN (and does it make sense then to use SQL filegroups on the same LUN?) or should we create 9 LUNs, placing one filegroup in each of LUNs?

    Thanks in advance,
    Alex
  2. satya Moderator

    http://www.sql-server-performance.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=21169 fyi.


    Satya SKJ
    Microsoft SQL Server MVP
    Writer, Contributing Editor & Moderator
    http://www.SQL-Server-Performance.Com
    This posting is provided AS IS with no rights for the sake of knowledge sharing. The greatest discovery of my generation is that a human being can alter his life by altering his attitudes of mind.
  3. alexbuil New Member

    Satya,

    Thanks for the link, but I still don't have it clear.

    The reason for my question is because MSA1000 is an entry leven SmartArray for HP, even certified to be used SQL Server
    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=r...zCs7apbRKTONSvGVg&sig2=AosPTygmHEbsiGXtZRXSmw

    But I have found on HP website a reported performance issue when using more than one LUN per disk array
    http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bizsuppor...Id=415598&prodTypeId=12169&objectID=c00622089

    Today we have contacted HP. They say that we can only create two LUNs in our smartarray, can this configuration separate physically the I/O operations for tempdb, data and index if placed in the same LUN? or we need a more expensive disk array, like EVA series?

    Thanks,
    Alex.
  4. satya Moderator

    I believe the hardware part of configuration is best suggested by Joe Chang on this site, you may wait for his expertise.

    Satya SKJ
    Microsoft SQL Server MVP
    Writer, Contributing Editor & Moderator
    http://www.SQL-Server-Performance.Com
    This posting is provided AS IS with no rights for the sake of knowledge sharing. The greatest discovery of my generation is that a human being can alter his life by altering his attitudes of mind.
  5. FrankKalis Moderator

    Is this double-posting related to this thread:<a target="_blank" href=http://www.sql-server-performance.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=21166>http://www.sql-server-performance.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=21166</a><br />[<img src='/community/emoticons/emotion-1.gif' alt=':)' />]<br /><br />--<br />Frank Kalis<br />Moderator<br />Microsoft SQL Server MVP<br />Webmaster:<a target="_blank" href=http://www.insidesql.de>http://www.insidesql.de</a>
  6. alexbuil New Member


    I am afraid that if I follow all the performance recommendations to isolate everything and want also RAID 1+0 the number of spindles needed will require a very expensive SAN

    I found messages to have separated, logs,temp,data,non-clustered indices (and also other suggestions from the CRM vendor to isolate busy and big tables like costumers, assets, activities)

    So is it true that a SAN with only one filegroup per LUN performs much better?



  7. joechang New Member

Share This Page