SQL Server Performance Forum – Threads Archive
LUNSHi All, I already posted similar message to one of the other groups before finding this one (apologies if I am repeating myself). -We are replacing our current SAN RAID 5 WITH RAID 10. -SQL server has no physical storage and (only) 1.5 gb memory for SQL (os, app and data are all in SAN RAID 5) -We are moving from SQL 7 to 2000 Standard edition. Enterprise edition (and memory enhancements that it could bring..) is out of question. -nearly all of our poorly performing scripts utilise temp tables and frequently join 2 tables with 10 million row each. So with the new RAID 10 will we benefit from separating OS, App, tempdb, logs, data, ALL to separate LUNs (RAID 10 group is a new concept to me)? Has anyone experience of actual performance improvements? Also is the admin overhead and recovery disadvantages considerable.
What is the size of database and its growth in next 5 years. The best indicator of future performance is past performance. After you have estimated the number of concurrent users, the read and write requirements of your application, and the data size requirements (taking into account growth and management tasks), ask yourself what areas will be bottlenecks for your application (for example, number of processors, speed, memory, network, or disk input/output). It is an ideal configuratio in seperating OS, Application and database files onto a seperate drives for better performance. For both performance and reliability reasons, it is recommended placing your data, log, and tempdb database files on RAID 10. Checkhttp://www.sql-server-performance.com/rc_hardware_planning.asp for h/w resource planning tips. Satya SKJ
This posting is provided â€œAS ISâ€ with no rights for the sake of knowledge sharing.