Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- All Categories
- 73 General
- 73 Announcements
- 66.6K Microsoft Dynamics NAV
- 18.7K NAV Three Tier
- 38.4K NAV/Navision Classic Client
- 3.6K Navision Attain
- 2.4K Navision Financials
- 115 Navision DOS
- 854 Navision e-Commerce
- 1K NAV Tips & Tricks
- 772 NAV Dutch speaking only
- 615 NAV Courses, Exams & Certification
- 2K Microsoft Dynamics-Other
- 1.5K Dynamics AX
- 305 Dynamics CRM
- 109 Dynamics GP
- 10 Dynamics SL
- 1.5K Other
- 993 SQL General
- 384 SQL Performance
- 34 SQL Tips & Tricks
- 34 Design Patterns (General & Best Practices)
- Architectural Patterns
- 10 Design Patterns
- 5 Implementation Patterns
- 53 3rd Party Products, Services & Events
- 1.7K General
- 1.1K General Chat
- 1.6K Website
- 79 Testing
- 1.2K Download section
- 23 How Tos section
- 260 Feedback
- 12 NAV TechDays 2013 Sessions
- 13 NAV TechDays 2012 Sessions
Revisiting RAID
JosephGress
Member Posts: 36
When clients have asked for recommendations regarding disk drive configurations for NAV SQL, I have advised most to use some variation of the following setup:
Three Logical Drives (each on dedicated spindles):
C: OS, Program Files, Master, Model, MSDB and tempdb SQL databases) (RAID 1)
NAV Database (mdf and ndf files) (RAID 1 or RAID 10)
E: NAV Transaction Log (RAID 1 or RAID 10)
Recently, one of my clients asked whether it would be better to put all of the drives on one big RAID 10 array. He pointed out the following article:
http://www.smbitjournal.com/2012/11/one ... er-storage
I would like to quote briefly from this article: "The only significant factor, that has not been mentioned, for which split arrays were traditionally seen as beneficial is access contention – the need for different processes to need access to different parts of the disk at the same time causing the drive head to move around in a less than ideal pattern reducing drive performance. Contention was a big deal in the late 1990s when the old rule of thumb was developed."
The article continues: "Today, drive contention still exists but has been heavily mitigated by the use of large RAID caches. ... These can easily add hundreds of gigabytes of extremely high speed cache that can buffer nearly any spindle operation from needing to worry about contention. So the issue of contention has been solved in other ways over the years but has, like other technology changes, effectively freed us from the traditional concerns requiring us to split arrays."
That argument is pretty compelling.
Is it time for me to change my recommendations?
Three Logical Drives (each on dedicated spindles):
C: OS, Program Files, Master, Model, MSDB and tempdb SQL databases) (RAID 1)
NAV Database (mdf and ndf files) (RAID 1 or RAID 10)E: NAV Transaction Log (RAID 1 or RAID 10)
Recently, one of my clients asked whether it would be better to put all of the drives on one big RAID 10 array. He pointed out the following article:
http://www.smbitjournal.com/2012/11/one ... er-storage
I would like to quote briefly from this article: "The only significant factor, that has not been mentioned, for which split arrays were traditionally seen as beneficial is access contention – the need for different processes to need access to different parts of the disk at the same time causing the drive head to move around in a less than ideal pattern reducing drive performance. Contention was a big deal in the late 1990s when the old rule of thumb was developed."
The article continues: "Today, drive contention still exists but has been heavily mitigated by the use of large RAID caches. ... These can easily add hundreds of gigabytes of extremely high speed cache that can buffer nearly any spindle operation from needing to worry about contention. So the issue of contention has been solved in other ways over the years but has, like other technology changes, effectively freed us from the traditional concerns requiring us to split arrays."
That argument is pretty compelling.
Is it time for me to change my recommendations?
Joseph Gress
0
Comments
I also see the article never quite defines what is meant by "a large RAID 10". How many drives are they talking about? Is it a number that would be typical?