Date parsed: 19/10/2007 07:25:10
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:25:10 -0700

8x72 + 12 x72 = 20 drives!
Oh my, nice setup.

You didn't say anything about controllers, but I'll assume 2 each for a
total of 4. With that setup, I would prefer more controllers, both for the
extra I/O and redundancy.

If this is a database server only, then install SQL Server on the C drive
with the OS and keep the master, msdb, model (and any minor use) databases
on C. 2 RAID 10's should be fine for C.

Hopefully, you aren't using a lot of tempdb. If you're not, dump that on C
too, otherwise dedicate a pair of drives for tempdb.

2 Drives in a RAID 10 exclusivly for transaction logs (I hope 72 GB is
enough log space, thats usually overkill)

2, 4, or 6 drives in a raid 10 exclusivly for backup (depending on how much
you want to keep). Unless you do backups to a NAS.

It you do a lot of filesystem stuff (data loads/file creation) dedicate a
pair of drive for that.

Well, at max, thats 10-12 drives used, 8-10 left.

RAID 10 6 of them for the data (235 GB).

Leave the last 2-4 undefined so you can make an adjustment at a later date.

You could also consider setting up DPV's, but that requires DDL changes and
is usually out of scope for this kind of upgrade.

Good luck,
Jay


<rjposey@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192823170.774053.198540@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> What is the best RAID level for SQL Server 2007? We will have 8x 72GB
> 15,000RPM disks in the box, with 12x 72GB 15,000 RPM disks in an MSA60
> attached. I will be segmenting into 3 partitions. I was thinking of
> splitting the 8 into 2 partition of 1+0 and then having the 12 disks
> in the MSA60 as a single 1+0 for the database partition. Current
> database is only 30GB, so the 410GB should be enough. Thoughts?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Robert
>