Disk Speed
in [Server Configuration]
|
From: CANews on 29 Apr 2010 21:57 Hi all I am being handed a Dell 2950 for a SQL server 2005 standard deply but I will need to put all new disks in it. I was told the best I can do is SATA 7200 RPM. I was going to RAID5 this to about 2TB. Is 7200RPM going to be too slow?? This will be hosting sharepoint services and a goldmine database regards -- Craig
From: TheSQLGuru on 30 Apr 2010 16:20 7200 SATA in a RAID 5 will be a total dog from a performance standpoint, especially since internally you cannot have very many spindles. -- Kevin G. Boles Indicium Resources, Inc. SQL Server MVP kgboles a earthlink dt net "CANews" <nf(a)no.com> wrote in message news:O0V1IiA6KHA.892(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > Hi all > I am being handed a Dell 2950 for a SQL server 2005 standard deply but I > will need to put all new disks in it. I was told the best I can do is > SATA 7200 RPM. I was going to RAID5 this to about 2TB. Is 7200RPM going > to be too slow?? This will be hosting sharepoint services and a goldmine > database > > regards > > -- Craig > >
From: Simon on 5 May 2010 08:59 On 30/04/2010 21:20, TheSQLGuru wrote: > 7200 SATA in a RAID 5 will be a total dog from a performance standpoint, > especially since internally you cannot have very many spindles. > Though I would say whether that matters depends on many other variables. E.g how many requests the server will get and how much RAM the server has. Most of the servers I work on serve 99% of all data from RAM, not disk.... :-)
From: TheSQLGuru on 5 May 2010 17:17 Then consider yourself very fortunate to have small databases, or IO subsystems that are fast enough that the read ahead mechanisms keep data fed to RAM before the CPUs need it. -- Kevin G. Boles Indicium Resources, Inc. SQL Server MVP kgboles a earthlink dt net "Simon" <nothanks(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ewTzaLF7KHA.3184(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > On 30/04/2010 21:20, TheSQLGuru wrote: >> 7200 SATA in a RAID 5 will be a total dog from a performance standpoint, >> especially since internally you cannot have very many spindles. >> > > Though I would say whether that matters depends on many other variables. > E.g how many requests the server will get and how much RAM the server has. > > Most of the servers I work on serve 99% of all data from RAM, not disk.... > > > :-)
From: Simon on 6 May 2010 04:39 I do work with relatively small databases - 100GB - 300GB generally with anywhere from 8GB - 24GB of RAM. The point I'm making though is that I don't think we can make any statements on whether the disk speed is going to be "too slow" or not without knowing more about what the server needs to do. Are we talking about a system where the entire database can fit into RAM 5 times over and has 4 users? Or are we talking about a business critical sales app with 30,000 users? I normally get 15K disks wherever possible, but in all honesty I notice not a jot of difference between that and 7.2K disks once the server is warmed up Just my two cents :-) Best Regards S On 05/05/2010 22:17, TheSQLGuru wrote: > Then consider yourself very fortunate to have small databases, or IO > subsystems that are fast enough that the read ahead mechanisms keep data fed > to RAM before the CPUs need it. >
|
Pages: 1 Prev: SQL Workgroup Licensing Next: Statistics Creation on SQL 2005 |