I can see where Shawn is going with this. A Raid 0+1 array would handle this situation better by getting the performance of sequential data writes. If it's a high performance controller it will handle the data flow very well. Ironicly you would get similar performance with that much memory and a Raid 5 array. With a large buffer on the controller performing the algorithm your not really loosing much (if any), especially with today's fast drives and controllers.
*shrug* 3 Spindles on one controller will separate things, and your probably not generating enough traffic for the controller to bottleneck, however I think a Raid 0+1 or Raid 5 would simplify things and would perform just as well or even better due to buffering and smart writes to the array, not just dumping to a spindle. Travis -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Shawn.Hayes@;compass.net] Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 2:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] RAID Configuration on DC's Part 3 Please explain how you will gain any performance increases when all three of your arrays exist on the same SCSI channel. Seems to me you have a single pipe leading to and from multiple arrays. It is not hard to figure where the bottle neck will be. -----Original Message----- From: Devan Pala [mailto:dpala@;hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 4:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ActiveDir] RAID Configuration on DC's Part 3 Hi, Thanks for all your replies earlier. Yes, it is true that the server only has 6 drive bays. The array controller has 2 internal and 2 external ports but I can only use one internally since the 6 drive bays only terminate to one SCSI port. (in this particular server). Reason for buying the high-end controller is due to standards and a proven track record in production. Reason for not upgrading the chassis is primarily cost especially in the branch offices, the root and hub-site controllers are and will be configured entirely different, dual array controllers, quad-xeon processors etc. The whole nine yards. The database has been sized and definitely over-engineered for the approx. 2500 users spread over 15 sites in the Americas and Europe. I do understand that read performance for the database will be greater under a Raid 5 (stripe set with parity) config. but that means combining the Logs as well. Therefore, in order to gain both performance and recovery benefits from segregating the OS, Logs and Database to their own spindle sets makes sense over a simple Raid 1 and Raid 5 config. (just as my mate Linton put it). So I'm going with three Raid 1 arrays. Cheers, _________________________________________________________________ Broadband? Dial-up? Get reliable MSN Internet Access. http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/