SQL Server Performance Forum – Threads Archive

LUN size

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

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.

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.

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.

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> [<img src=’/community/emoticons/emotion-1.gif’ alt=’

‘ />] – Frank Kalis Moderator Microsoft SQL Server MVP Webmaster:<a target="_blank" href=http://www.insidesql.de>http://www.insidesql.de</a>

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?

i have nothing to add beyond what is in the main post on this matter
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=16995 people seem to like expensive sans for some reason,
or atleast gravitate to them something about a fool and his money?

]]>