How to best configure 13 drive array for SQL Server

Posted on 2004-09-20
Last Modified: 2006-11-17
The hardware had been purchased when i arrived here.  It's a Dell Powervault with 13 73 Gig drives.

My bosses want:

- fault tolerance
- fault tolerance
- fault tolerance
- fault tolerance
- fault tolerance, and, of course,
- fault tolerance.

And they want it to be fast too.

What would be the best way to configure these drives to provide both. Had a bad experience with a single point of failure web server on Friday - one drive in a four drive RAID 5 array crashed and the thing just wallowed while it compensated.r

Originally, the vision for this array was 10 drives RAID-5.  We're wondering now if that is the best route.  Another opinion here is two mirrored RAID 5 volumes of 5 drives each.

What is the best way to configure this so that the failure of one drive doesn't bring drag our enterprise into the mud?

Question by:JXCovert
Welcome to Experts Exchange

Add your voice to the tech community where 5M+ people just like you are talking about what matters.

  • Help others & share knowledge
  • Earn cash & points
  • Learn & ask questions
  • 2

Expert Comment

ID: 12103611
question back to you:


Author Comment

ID: 12105389

Good question.

This array will "house" our SQL 2000 data, with two SQL Servers Active-Passive connected to it.

Thanks for the question.


Accepted Solution

ccsenet earned 300 total points
ID: 12111110
If you are that much worried about Fault Tolerance you have the following options:

1. Use RAID10 (if you do not care about the storage space that is used up in this configuration)
You can loose upto 4 drives without any loss. This option is best for fault tolerance and performance

2. Survive three failures:
Configure 11 Hard Disks in RAID 5 and then 2 as Hot Spares

3. Have a look at RAID6 also

You have to ensure that your RAID controller supports the RAID10/RAID6 option

Assisted Solution

FDzjuba earned 200 total points
ID: 12154315
this is the relevent discussion:

from the above article, summarizing:

you can configure disks for data and for transaction logs separetly, then have one for backup, in this case you would provide pretty good security of your data. Having 100% data backup in place,
if your data disk fails -  you have you previous backup & transaction log
if your transaction log fails - you got data -> start new transaction log
if your backup drive fails - you got tape, if you don't, simply backup database & transaction log

if everything fails then its probably armagedon or something like that and there is no point to live anyway

Featured Post

Optimize your web performance

What's in the eBook?
- Full list of reasons for poor performance
- Ultimate measures to speed things up
- Primary web monitoring types
- KPIs you should be monitoring in order to increase your ROI

Question has a verified solution.

If you are experiencing a similar issue, please ask a related question

Ever needed a SQL 2008 Database replicated/mirrored/log shipped on another server but you can't take the downtime inflicted by initial snapshot or disconnect while T-logs are restored or mirror applied? You can use SQL Server Initialize from Backup…
Recently we ran in to an issue while running some SQL jobs where we were trying to process the cubes.  We got an error saying failure stating 'NT SERVICE\SQLSERVERAGENT does not have access to Analysis Services. So this is a way to automate that wit…
Using examples as well as descriptions, and references to Books Online, show the documentation available for datatypes, explain the available data types and show how data can be passed into and out of variables.
Viewers will learn how to use the SELECT statement in SQL to return specific rows and columns, with various degrees of sorting and limits in place.

622 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

Join & Ask a Question