RE: Performance questions

scott:

i was thinking about both files.

jeff

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 3/16/2004 at 1:19 PM Scott LaFave wrote:

>Jeff:
>
>Thanks for the response again.  One more point of clarification if you
>could. I already have the vault mdf and ldf as you said, mdf on raid 5, ldf
>on raid 10.  When you say place tempdb on raid 10, do you mean move both
>tempdb's mdf and ldf files, or just move tempdb's ldf to raid 10?
>
>Scott
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: jeff clausius [mailto:[email protected]] 
>Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 12:07 PM
>To: Scott LaFave
>Cc: [email protected]
>Subject: RE: [vault-list] Performance questions
>
>scott:
>
>assumption - when you say "raid" drives, the machine has two hardware raid
>controllers.  with that said, let's start with the characteristics from the
>raid drives:
>
>raid 5 - very, very good read speeds, but medium write speeds
>raid 10 - high read/write speeds
>
>
>based on how vault's dependency on baselines, i would guess the server
>probably reads something like 60-70% of the time.  so a good read speed is
>required for the .mdf file.  either controller would meet this requirement.
>
>now, table writes ( updates / deletes ) will take place quite a bit in the
>.ldf file, and then eventually to the .mdf (on checkpoint).  so having
>extremely good performance on the .ldf will help.  however, writes on the
>.mdf, while important, are not as important as the .ldf.  based on this,
>.ldf would best be served on the raid 10 controller and .mdf on either, but
>raid 5 would suffice.
>
>as for tempdb - performance for reads and writes is important.  raid 10 it
>is.
>
>so i guess i would recommend: 
>1)  .mdf on the raid 5 controller
>2)  .ldf on the raid 10 controller
>3)  tempdb on the raid 10 controller
>
>anyone else care to chime in?
>
>jeff
>sourcegear
>