<div>
lostcarpark:<br />
<br />
RAID0 = Striping, fast read/writes, data is striped over multiple drives. &nbsp; In *theory* faster than a single drive, in practice, you need multiple IDE controllers<br />
or SCSI or SATA with tagged queuing (Last time I checked, SATA with tagged queuing was rare)<br />
&nbsp; &nbsp;- Incidentally, RAID 0 is quite doable on ancient IDE based systems since all systems came with 2 IDE controllers by default<br />
RAID1 = Mirroring - theoretically can boost read performance, but since this is software RAID, no performance gain will be realized.<br />
&nbsp; &nbsp;- See above about old IDE. &nbsp;Just don't expect it to win any races.<br />
RAID5 - Striping with parity spread over multiple disks...the data reduncancy and disk efficiency override any speed loss (which is considerable).<br />
&nbsp; - so you were OK here.<br />
<br />
Cute website describing RAID levels<br />
<a href="http://www.prepressure.com/techno/raid.htm" rel="ugc">http://www.prepressure.com/techno/raid.htm</a><br />
<br />
Cheers,<br />
-Bill
</div>


<div>
hi Bill, lostcarpark:<br />
<br />
Thanks a lot for your value feed back. I will throw these questions to our Hardware team and get a clear Idea about the RAID configuration.<br />
<br />
I really appreciate your help.
</div>


<div>
Argh! You're quite correct, I mixed up RAID 0 and 1.<br />
<br />
RAID 1 (mirroring) is worth considering even on a fully hardware RAID device. For example, seperating your database and logs onto seperate physical drives is recommended by most database vendors. This benefits in terms of both performance and reliability. In many cases a large drive provides more space than your database will ever need.<br />
<br />
Obvioulsy this depends on the application - if you have a huge warehousing application you should probably be looking at SAN type storage. You need to look at how big your storage requirements are now, how best to break them down, and how much they'll grow over the next few years.<br />
<br />
I should have mentioned its also worth looking at the disk drives themselves. There are exceptions, but most SCSI drives will knock the socks off most IDE or SATA drives in terms of both performance and reliability. Of course they will also cost considerably more, and a decent SCSI RAID controller may well set you back more than you paid for the rest of your server.
</div>


<div>
<div class="content wysiwyg-content">
Hi All,<br />
<br />
This is a strange problem. Same dot net application, when run in two different servers it has huge performance differennce. see the server spec below.<br />
<br />
Server 1: (Windows 2003, 3Ghz CPU Speed, 3GB Memory, RAID)<br />
Server 2: (Windows 2003, 3Ghz CPU Speed, 1GB Memory, Single Disk)<br />
<br />
both servers has local database.<br />
<br />
Server 1 is 10 times slower than the Server 2. Strange part is Server 1 is a powerful server than the Server 2.<br />
<br />
What setting in server 1 can cause this problem? is there anything to do with the registry?<br />
<br />
Thanks for your help<br />

</div>
</div>


Hi All,

This is a strange problem. Same dot net application, when run in two different servers it has huge performance differennce. see the server spec below.

Server 1: (Windows 2003, 3Ghz CPU Speed, 3GB Memory, RAID)
Server 2: (Windows 2003, 3Ghz CPU Speed, 1GB Memory, Single Disk)

both servers has local database.

Server 1 is 10 times slower than the Server 2. Strange part is Server 1 is a powerful server than the Server 2.

What setting in server 1 can cause this problem? is there anything to do with the registry?

Thanks for your help


Dot Net Application Performance issue

Programming includes both the specifics of the language you’re using, like Visual Basic, .NET, Java and others, but also the best practices in user experience and interfaces and the management of projects, version control and development. Other programming topics are related to web and cloud development and system and hardware programming.