Change from Raid 5 to RAID 10

NavStudent
NavStudent Member Posts: 399
edited 2007-03-04 in NAV/Navision Classic Client
Hello.
Because of perfromance issues a client is changing from raid 5 to raid 10.
3 72 Gig disk. 144 GB
3 300 Gig disk. 840 GB

What would they need to buy to change it to RAID 10 and how long will the process take?
my 2 cents

Comments

  • ara3n
    ara3n Member Posts: 9,258
    edited 2007-02-24
    To change to
    3 72 Gig disk. 144 GB Raid 5 to Raid 10.

    I would to buy 4 144 GB drives. Instead of 1 72 Gig disks.


    3 300 Gig disk. 840 GB. That's 600 gig.

    I'm guessing you have scsi drives. The biggest size right now is 300 gig.
    So purchase 1 300 gig drives.
    Ahmed Rashed Amini
    Independent Consultant/Developer


    blog: https://dynamicsuser.net/nav/b/ara3n
  • ara3n
    ara3n Member Posts: 9,258
    edited 2007-02-24
    I checked pricewatch.com

    and scsi 72 gig drives goes for 36 dollars. 144 gig drives go for 140 dollars.

    So maybe you should buy 1 or 3 72 gig drives.


    The 300 gig drives go for 320.00 dollars.






    The time to reconfigure the server will involve.
    Backing up the data.

    Reformat and reconfigure the harddrives.
    Install the OS.
    Install the server.
    Restore the backup data.
    Ahmed Rashed Amini
    Independent Consultant/Developer


    blog: https://dynamicsuser.net/nav/b/ara3n
  • DenSter
    DenSter Member Posts: 8,307
    For RAID 10 you need an even number of disks
    Daniel Rimmelzwaan
    RIS Plus, LLC
  • bbrown
    bbrown Member Posts: 3,268
    With RAID 10 "more smaller disk" is better then "fewer larger disk". You need an even number of equal size/performance disk for RAID 10. Use smaller disk and buy more. A RAID 10 build on 4 300 GB DRIves will experience performance bottlenecks long before the disk capacity is used. Don't pay for disk space you will not use. The goal is to get as many platters and heads accessing the data. The size of the disk are not a factor in the performance of the array.
    There are no bugs - only undocumented features.
  • Waldo
    Waldo Member Posts: 3,412
    And always buy 15K rpm discs.

    Eric Wauters
    MVP - Microsoft Dynamics NAV
    My blog
  • David_Singleton
    David_Singleton Member Posts: 5,479
    NavStudent wrote:
    Hello.
    Because of perfromance issues a client is changing from raid 5 to raid 10.
    3 72 Gig disk. 144 GB
    3 300 Gig disk. 840 GB

    What would they need to buy to change it to RAID 10 and how long will the process take?

    SQL or Native?
    David Singleton
  • Nobody
    Nobody Member Posts: 93
    If this is SQL do not forget you will also need a second RAID 1 partition for the sql log file. NEVER put the data files and the log files on the same logical and physical drives, this is a performance killer.
  • NavStudent
    NavStudent Member Posts: 399
    It's sql.

    wouldn't it be faster to have log on separate raid 10 instead of raid 1?
    my 2 cents
  • NavStudent
    NavStudent Member Posts: 399
    One more question. On some systems you have a raid 5 or raid 1 configuration.
    If you look in windows, you'll see that they have created different drives with different sizes even if the physical drives are of different drives. For example


    6 70 gig drives raid 1.

    From windows you'll see one drive C: for 20 gig and another drive D: for 190.


    Does this have a performance effect?

    Should the actual physical drive be an actual drive in windows?

    If I create split the Native drive, I know exactly on which physical drive they will be. If I split it on vritual 190 gig drive, I don't know where it actually is.

    Am I am making sense?
    my 2 cents
  • Waldo
    Waldo Member Posts: 3,412
    NavStudent wrote:
    It's sql.

    wouldn't it be faster to have log on separate raid 10 instead of raid 1?
    It's always faster to run RAID10 in stead of RAID 1, but the question is, is it worth the cost. Imho: No.

    Eric Wauters
    MVP - Microsoft Dynamics NAV
    My blog
  • Waldo
    Waldo Member Posts: 3,412
    NavStudent wrote:
    Am I am making sense?
    Not much :wink:
    Kidding ...

    What you see in Drive Management is normal.
    You should check the RAID configuration software to see how the discs are configured...

    Am I making sense?

    Eric Wauters
    MVP - Microsoft Dynamics NAV
    My blog
  • NavStudent
    NavStudent Member Posts: 399
    To find the raid management software, I just have to dig around in windows?


    What about the performance ? How does it effect performance?
    my 2 cents
  • bbrown
    bbrown Member Posts: 3,268
    Use RAID 1 for transaction logs. There is no advantage to RAID 10 for logs. The idea is to keep the head in position for the next write. It is more importiant that this drive is dedicated to the transaction log. That means no other files should ever be placed on the drive. This includes other transaction logs. If you are hosting multiple databases, on a server, then each one should have a dedicated log drive.
    There are no bugs - only undocumented features.
  • bbrown
    bbrown Member Posts: 3,268
    There is no performance advantage to partioning a RAID set. This practice is a carry-over from older operating systems that could not support large logical drives.
    There are no bugs - only undocumented features.
  • NavStudent
    NavStudent Member Posts: 399
    bbrown wrote:
    There is no performance advantage to partioning a RAID set. This practice is a carry-over from older operating systems that could not support large logical drives.

    I agree, but you would get have performace degradation.
    If I create split the Native drive, I know exactly on which physical drive they will be. If I split it on vritual 190 gig drive, I don't know where it actually is.
    my 2 cents
  • bbrown
    bbrown Member Posts: 3,268
    RAID doesn't work like that. If you partition an array into logical drives, all logical drives use all physical drives. The data is spread across the entire set of physical drives.
    There are no bugs - only undocumented features.
  • DenSter
    DenSter Member Posts: 8,307
    Don't confuse partitions with RAID arrays. Having a partition for data and one for the log in the same array will still not give you any performance increase over having both of them in the same array.

    I don't know how to actually set up the RAID arrays, but use a separate array for OS, one for the data files and one for the log file.
    Daniel Rimmelzwaan
    RIS Plus, LLC
  • NavStudent
    NavStudent Member Posts: 399
    Could somebody explain how to use separate array? Does it need additional hardware or is it a setup in raid?
    my 2 cents
  • bbrown
    bbrown Member Posts: 3,268
    The RAID Controller will allow you to create multiple arrays and specify which physical disk belong to which arrays. Consider the following example:

    You have 14 disk enclosure connected to a dual-channel array. You might consider the following configuration (there are many options).

    1. 2 Phisical Drives Drives (RAID 1) O/S, Paging File, Programs

    2. 2 Physical Drives (RAID 1) SQL Standard DBs (master, etc, + Navision Primary)

    3. 2 Physical Drives (RAID 1) SQL Transaction Log for Navision

    4. 8 Physical Drives (RAID 10) navision Secondary Data File(s)

    The server O/S is not aware of the physical drives. It is presented a logical disk by the controller. In example 4 (using 36 GB drives), the O/S would see a single 144 GB Drive.
    There are no bugs - only undocumented features.
  • NavStudent
    NavStudent Member Posts: 399
    thank you bbrown. Now I have a pretty good idea. Although I don't know if I ever get my hands on with installing everything from scratch on a server with RAID. I spend too much time with ERP and software world.
    my 2 cents
  • David_Singleton
    David_Singleton Member Posts: 5,479
    bbrown wrote:
    ...

    1. 2 Phisical Drives Drives (RAID 1) O/S, Paging File, Programs
    2. 2 Physical Drives (RAID 1) SQL Standard DBs (master, etc, + Navision Primary)
    3. 2 Physical Drives (RAID 1) SQL Transaction Log for Navision
    4. 8 Physical Drives (RAID 10) navision Secondary Data File(s)
    ...

    I'm curious. Wouldn't it be better to have 10 drives in RAID 10 and put all the databases on that Array, than having the primary DB on a separate RAID 1? After all this means you would have one extra spindle for the actual data, and the other databases are not really used that much.

    i.e.
    1. 2 Physical Drives (RAID 1) O/S, Paging File, Programs
    2. 10 Physical Drives (RAID 10) SQL Standard DBs (master, etc, + Navision Primary) + navision Secondary Data File(s)
    3. 2 Physical Drives (RAID 1) SQL Transaction Log for Navision

    Also don't forget a drive to make backups to.
    David Singleton
  • bbrown
    bbrown Member Posts: 3,268
    I'm curious. Wouldn't it be better to have 10 drives in RAID 10 and put all the databases on that Array, than having the primary DB on a separate RAID 1? After all this means you would have one extra spindle for the actual data, and the other databases are not really used that much.

    As I said "there are many options". This was just an example used to answer a specific questions. In the real world, the O/S would probably be on an internal RAID 1 (different controller), leaving an extra set of drives.

    The best configuration is to have the 2 data files on completely different arrays (controllers & drives). The primary data file contains the system tables. Access to these tables is required to execute transaction log backups.
    Also don't forget a drive to make backups to.

    Using a larger set of drives for the first RAID set (O/S) would provide space for backups. This is of course only one option.

    The options tend to be limited only by budget.
    There are no bugs - only undocumented features.

Categories