|
|
Posted by Dan Guzman on 08/20/06 15:03
> The theory is that even if one drive fails, the db will stay up and it
> will be easy to recreate the indexes when the disk has been replaced. (We
> will have one hot spare available)
>
> Does anyone know how well sqlserver 2005 handles disk loss in such a
> configuration?
I've seen a SQL 2005 demo with files on removable drives that may provide
some insight. In that demo, the database remained online when USB drives
were physically removed as long as the transaction log was available.
Commands continued to run successfully when cached data were accessed and
even updates succeeded. However, commands that required physical I/O to
missing files (non-cached data) failed. The database was marked suspect
when SQL Server was restarted because recovery couldn't take place with
missing files.
You cannot easily recreate the indexes after you lose index files because a
full database restore is required after files are lost. You'll need to
restore from full backup and apply transaction log backups. However, at
least the database will be partially available during the degradation.
I suggest you stick with RAID-10 if high availability is important in your
environment. Disk storage is inexpensive nowadays.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"boa" <boasema@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MZ6dnUUWWqoevHXZ4p2dnA@telenor.com...
> I'm currently planning disk layouts and use for a new version of our
> database. The current version has all data and indexes in the default
> filegroup, placed on one big raid-5 array(6 drives) along with the
> transaction log. Performance is not the best, as you may imagine...
>
> Next week we will add another 14 drives and organize them in different
> combos of raid-10 and raid-1, and then create several filegroups and place
> tables and index data on separate physical drives.
>
> Most of the database will be placed on a raid-10 array, and some parts
> (tables/indexes/translog) will have their own raid-1 drives.
>
> I've been playing with the rather incorrect idea of using raid-0 instead
> of raid-1 on one or two of the new disk arrays we're adding and then place
> (some) indexes on those drives.
>
> The theory is that even if one drive fails, the db will stay up and it
> will be easy to recreate the indexes when the disk has been replaced. (We
> will have one hot spare available)
>
> Does anyone know how well sqlserver 2005 handles disk loss in such a
> configuration?
>
> Any other comments? ;-)
>
> boa
>
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|