SQL Server Performance

What is more useful, diskpart or 2 controllers

Discussion in 'Performance Tuning for Hardware Configurations' started by brimba, Jan 20, 2006.

  1. brimba New Member


    As I can understand it, it is not possible to align dynamic disks.
    Like this article says http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...nce/0e24eb22-fbd5-4536-9cb4-2bd8e98806e7.mspx)

    So if we create 2 LUNs connected to one disk array. Each LUN is connected to 5 disks and the whole array spans over 10 disks.

    What we did previeously was making these LUNs to a dynamic disk to make them "share" drive letter.

    Is there any way to get use of booth our controller cards in the SAN and still align the disks with diskpart?

    If not, should I connect the disks to one controllercard only and run diskpart or is it better to share the load on two controller cards?

    All together we have 14 disks.

    Our first setup was:

    10 x 73GB in a raid 10 setup (for data) (using 2 LUNs and connected to booth controllers)
    2 x 73GB in a raid 1 setup (for log) (using 2 LUNs and connected to booth controllers)
    2 x 73GB in a raid 1 setup (for system databases)

    Maybe its better to use diskpart ant connect the 10 disks to one controller and the other 4 disks to the other one?

  2. joechang New Member

    if we are talking SQL Server, split the data into 2 files, on each LUN, each going through a different controller

    how with this number of disks, you will not see any gain on most SANs,
    for some reason, SQL Server only gets about 10-12MB/sec per disk on a SAN, so you don't have enough disks to saturate a single 2Gbit/s FC port.

    with DA disks, it is possible to get 60-80MB/sec per disk on sequential loads, or about 240-260MB/sec per U320 SCSI channel, and about 480MB/sec through a dual port card

Share This Page