- Community Home
- >
- Storage
- >
- Entry Storage Systems
- >
- Disk Enclosures
- >
- Re: SQL Server on XP 10000--What is best practice?
Categories
Company
Local Language
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Forums
Discussions
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Community
Resources
Forums
Blogs
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-09-2009 02:23 PM
тАО01-09-2009 02:23 PM
I have 4 array groups available on my XP 10k for use by the Microsoft group for SQL Server data. I came from the Unix admin group and am very new in the Microsoft world. In the Unix world for Oracle, SAME (stripe and mirror everything) was an accepted best practice for data stored on a SAN. I suspect that something similar is the best practice for SQL server, and that striping the data across all 16 disks is the best approach. If it is, then it would seem that the best approach for the 16 disks would be RAID5 (14+2) to get the best striping, and then rely on the cache to "buffer" while the parity is generated and the data is written. Am I on the right track?
Solved! Go to Solution.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-09-2009 02:33 PM
тАО01-09-2009 02:33 PM
Re: SQL Server on XP 10000--What is best practice?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-09-2009 03:27 PM
тАО01-09-2009 03:27 PM
Re: SQL Server on XP 10000--What is best practice?
While that doc didn't have exactly what I was hoping for, it did get me looking in the right area to find this link: http://search.hp.com/redirect.html?type=REG&qt=SQL+Server+2005+OLTP+with+HP+StorageWorks&url=http%3A//h71028.www7.hp.com/ERC/downloads/4AA0-2948ENW.pdf%3Fjumpid%3Dreg_R1002_USEN&pos=1
It is an EVA performance test showing that striping across more disks gives better I/O.
Now if I could just figure out a way to to RAID10 across all 16 disks in the XP...does anybody know if it can be done?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-09-2009 03:46 PM
тАО01-09-2009 03:46 PM
Solution1. its a good idea to avoid the 3D+1P, which could be the bottleneck for the SQL random read. In XP for the RAID1 there is only 4D+4D configuration of the array group (8 physical disks).
2. But there is no need for the RAID1 4D+4D, because there are other RAID5 concatenation configs like 14D+2P (16 physical disks in the array group) or the max 28D+4P (32 physical disks in the array group), which can be used for the SQL.
3. and there is a option called LUSE (which is not stripped but spanned), but allows you to create and collect the disks from the different array groups as a smaller chunks
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-09-2009 04:03 PM
тАО01-09-2009 04:03 PM
Re: SQL Server on XP 10000--What is best practice?
But as I have said the better solution here is to use the RAID5 concatenation with interleaving (14D+2P and /or 28D+4P) or buying a new XP24000 and apply the ThP solution which is implemented only in the XP20/24k firmware :-).
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-23-2009 08:04 AM
тАО01-23-2009 08:04 AM
Re: SQL Server on XP 10000--What is best practice?
I appreciate the information. That is what I had suspected. I had been recommending 14+2 bet was getting pushback from management.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-23-2009 12:41 PM
тАО01-23-2009 12:41 PM
Re: SQL Server on XP 10000--What is best practice?
Most XP configurations I see these days use RAID5 (7+1), RAID5 Interleaving (this is what IBalty refers to when he mentions the 14+2) or they use ThP. This is because the XP is a good storage array and can usually get away without RAID1.
However, there are situations where RAID1 (the XP does RAID10 which is better) vastly outperforms RAID5. I mentioned in a previous post that if the XP cannot coalesce random writes into full stripe writes then the penalty incurred for a RAID5 write is 4 back end operations per write ├в
1. read of old data
2. read of old parity
3. write of new data
4. calculation and write of new parity.
So every random write causes 4 back end disk operations plus a calculation for the DRR chips on the back end directors.
This is a huge penalty if your I/O profile is a LOT of small block random I/O.
If you cant get away with RAID5 you can do the following ├в
The only way to use all 16 disks for RAID 10 is to create 2 x RAID10 (4+4) Array Groups. The XP does RAID10 which is 1+0 as follows ├в
1 = mirroring. First it creates a 4 pairs of mirrored drives
0 = striping. Then it stripes data evenly over the 4 mirrored pairs
So I suppose this sort of gives you mirroring and striping according to your SAME.
However, most implementations and interpretations of SAME are as follows ├в
Create RAID10 volumes on your storage arrays and present these volumes to your host. Take these volumes on your host and use your hosts volume manager to create them into a stripe set (RAID0 with no parity, just pure striping). This way you are striping over mirrored volumes. This is your typical SAME.
However, you might want to have your data on RAID10 and your logs on RAID5. As you will know logs generate sequential writes which perform better on RAID5 as more spindles are used (less are wasted on mirroring/parity).
Like I said, very subjective ;-)
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-23-2009 01:07 PM
тАО01-23-2009 01:07 PM
Re: SQL Server on XP 10000--What is best practice?
Volume Manager will save you from other potential problems of CHA-MP being bottleneck to IOs. I have seen that less than 3000 IOPS coming from MSSQL can load the CHA-MPs to 70% or above and in that case if you don't have multiple volumes presented on different CHA-MPs you will be handicapped without Volume manager.
Last point I have here to highlight is that, plan and distribute your load across multiple HBAs and if you can avoid HBA load balancing (RR or SQST or SP) and just use preferred controller setting (balanced across available HBAs) you will be just fine to run the setup longer without hick-ups.
My 2 cents worth.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-23-2009 01:53 PM
тАО01-23-2009 01:53 PM
Re: SQL Server on XP 10000--What is best practice?
Your response covered what I had been thinking. And after a meeting with my manager and the SQL DBA, we implemented 14+2 RAID5. Hopefully the XP's performance will protect us from the parity penalty.
Thanks Amardeep,
I especially appreciate your response for recommending mirroring. (It is always good to get differing points of view!) If the current 14+2 implementation doesn't perform well I will be sheepishly implementing your recommendation. I hadn't thought about doing OS level striping to merge two 4+4 LUNs since I hadn't been told that it could be done on Windows. I used to do it all the time with LVM. Now I have more to talk about with the other Microsoft Admins.
Thanks again to both of you,
Paul
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-26-2009 12:29 AM
тАО01-26-2009 12:29 AM
Re: SQL Server on XP 10000--What is best practice?
As amardeep mentioned please use multiple HBA's and dedicated CHA ports for this server.
I have seen windows hosts pumping 3K to 4K IOPS on one LUN causing high CHA utilization and high cache write pending.