RAID Level for SQL 2000 & 2005 MDF files.

I know that best pratices is to put the LOG (.LDF) files on a RAID1 configuration, but what about the DATA (.MDF) files.  Is it okay to put it on the second channel in RAID1 as well? Or is it better to have RAID5 on the second channel for the .mdf file? What do you have to say? Please provide you thoughts and aso any links to published documentation.  

Thank you very much and have a great day.
Rob DuranSystems Network EngineerAsked:
Who is Participating?
I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.

Daniel WilsonCommented:
Raid5 would be better (at least if you're getting much WRITE activity)  ... but Raid1 sure beats no RAID !

Raid1 increases READ performance, but hurts WRITE performance.  RAID 1-0 is great, but many controllers won't handle it.  RAID 5 is pretty good on READ, WRITE and the basic -- redundancy.  And most controllers support it.
0

Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by

Your issues matter to us.

Facing a tech roadblock? Get the help and guidance you need from experienced professionals who care. Ask your question anytime, anywhere, with no hassle.

Start your 7-day free trial
lnkevinCommented:
Is it okay to put it on the second channel in RAID1 as well?

RAID 1 only supports 2 drives. If you create 2 RAID 1, why don't you create one RAID 10? As you know, RAID 10 offers the best performance and redundancy. You can separate OS, logs, and data by partition.

RAID1 VS RAID 5?

Raid 1 (for 2 drives or 10 for more than 2 with even number of drives) offers more read and write performance compares to RAID 5. Check this Bench Mark Chart for both read and write on the two RAIDs:
http://blogs.sun.com/mrbenchmark/entry/raid_1_vs_raid_56

Bottom line, RAID 5 is NOT the best choice for performance wise, RAID 1 or 1+0 is. However, RAID 5 offers affordable storage space with a decent performance. For database system with heavy transaction, RAID 10 offers best performance, but if you are short on budget, you only need to put the logs on RAID 1 (for heavy write purpose) and the entire database can be on RAID 5 since there is not much WRITE transaction on the .MDF part. If you put it on RAID 1 or 10, you would have increased the read performance by a little, not much.

K

0
It's more than this solution.Get answers and train to solve all your tech problems - anytime, anywhere.Try it for free Edge Out The Competitionfor your dream job with proven skills and certifications.Get started today Stand Outas the employee with proven skills.Start learning today for free Move Your Career Forwardwith certification training in the latest technologies.Start your trial today
Microsoft SQL Server 2005

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.

Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.