SQL Server Performance

SAS vs SCSI

Discussion in 'SQL Server 2005 Performance Tuning for Hardware' started by markmin, May 9, 2006.

  1. markmin New Member

    I'm looking to purchase an external drive system for my .mdf files (want to increase read performance). Can anyone provide advice on which option will provide better performance?

    1. MSA50 dual channel with 15k U320 drives (5 drives per channel)

    2. MSA30 with 15k drives (5 drives per channel). Acually, I'm not sure how to configure the chanels on SAS.

    Any help with would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
  2. joechang New Member

    the MSA 30 is U320 for 3.5in drives, which can be either 10K or 15K

    the MSA 50 is SAS for 2.5in SFF drives, which are only 10K

    15K drives can achieve slightly better performance in transactional apps operating at low queue, but in a properly designed storage system,
    this really should not make much of a difference

    the other issue is the SAS SFF drives are more expensive than the 3.5in drives, (10K 73GB)

    long term, SAS is the preferred solution, but nothing wrong in going with U320 for now.

    no config issues on SAS
  3. markmin New Member

    Thanks Joe. That's very helpful.
  4. Tom Metzie New Member

    I noticed that HP 72GB 15K rpm SAS disks now are available.

    I will go for dual P600 controllers with 512MB cache to dual MSA50 with 8 x 72GB 15K rpm disks in each.

    Will use Raid 0+1 for speed.

    Haven't decided as yet how to configure the raid arrays (oh, there is a P400 in the HP DL585G2 with another 8 x 72Gb 15Krpm disks.

    I thought
    2 disks for OS
    2 disks for tempdb
    2 disks for logfiles
    the rest for DB

    Comments and suggestions welcom

    Tom

    Tom
  5. joechang New Member

    i think the 15K SAS are only LFF (3.5 in) which should fit in the unreleased MSA-60
    the SFF (2.5in) only offers 10K

    depending on the app, i prefer 2+ disks for logs, ie, depending on the size of T-Log backups, and tolerable performance impact during T-log b/u

    i also prefer tempdb shared with data, for maximum performance on need

    for non-clustered systems, the OS drive could also be used for logs if desired
    clustered must have dedicated OS drive, unfortunately SAS does not support clustering yet (from HP Dell?.

Share This Page