Re: Windows Server Configuration
David Lazo wrote: I'm sorry to bother you again with this. So we have the server but we have 4 Drives and now that I'm trying to set up the RAID10 I'm starting to think I needed 5 Drives one for the OS?. Please advise. David. snip We built one pretty close to this recently. You definitely want to go with raid10, make sure the controller is hardware and not software raid (uses the CPU for everything, opposed to having a dedicated on board CPU) The more spindles the better, in order to use RAID10 you need an even set of disks, min 4. Raid10 gives you the best performance while keeping data redundancy. I would set it up like this: Raid1 -- OS (you could use slower/smaller drives here) Raid10 -- all of the mysql data -- as many spindles as you can afford. If you have to swap out 73GB drives for for the 146's to get more spindles, I would do that (that would increase cost a bit, but the disk sub system here would be the bottle neck, so you want to have it as fast as you can get it -- and still be affordable) This all depends on what your data environment looks like as well. We have RAID 1 for the OS (requires 2 disks) If you are doing data redundancy for the DB, you'd want to also do data redundancy for the OS... If it is a windows server, 32GB drives should give you plenty of space to work with (save some money) and you can get away with 10Krpm or if budgets are tight, 7200rpm. Our layout is mentioned in my previous mail. -- Thanks, James Rallo Trusswood Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.Trusswood.Net Tele: (321) 383-0366 Fax: (321) 383-0362 -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Windows Server Configuration
James, with just 4 drives, you can set up one big RAID 10 disk (usually called a logical disk, with Dell PERCs I think it's a container), and then partition it for your different needs. If you have 4 73 GB disks, you probably have around 135 GB formatted capacity with RAID 10; I'd do something like this for my own MySQL server in that situation: 20 GB C partition for OS and software binaries 10 GB D partition for MySQL temp space 20-40 GB E partition for MySQL binary logs (if you're using them) remainder F partiition for MySQL data directory Your needs will vary depending on whether this server does only MySQL or other serving as well, how big your databases are, whether you want to keep binary logs for some period of time, and how large those binary logs are. I agree with David's response that you want redundancy for the OS as well. Drives fail, plain and simple. The single best thing you can do with servers is plan for hardware failure. Having your data on redundant disks is great, but if your OS is on a single drive, when (not if, when) that one fails, your data is redundant but still unavailable. You may pay a small performance penalty having the OS on the same physical drives with your MySQL, but I'd make that sacrifice for the redundancy, no question. On the other hand if you want to add a couple of drives and make a separate RAID 1 pair for the OS, go for it. Best, Dan On 8/25/06, JamesDR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Lazo wrote: I'm sorry to bother you again with this. So we have the server but we have 4 Drives and now that I'm trying to set up the RAID10 I'm starting to think I needed 5 Drives one for the OS?. Please advise. David. snip We built one pretty close to this recently. You definitely want to go with raid10, make sure the controller is hardware and not software raid (uses the CPU for everything, opposed to having a dedicated on board CPU) The more spindles the better, in order to use RAID10 you need an even set of disks, min 4. Raid10 gives you the best performance while keeping data redundancy. I would set it up like this: Raid1 -- OS (you could use slower/smaller drives here) Raid10 -- all of the mysql data -- as many spindles as you can afford. If you have to swap out 73GB drives for for the 146's to get more spindles, I would do that (that would increase cost a bit, but the disk sub system here would be the bottle neck, so you want to have it as fast as you can get it -- and still be affordable) This all depends on what your data environment looks like as well. We have RAID 1 for the OS (requires 2 disks) If you are doing data redundancy for the DB, you'd want to also do data redundancy for the OS... If it is a windows server, 32GB drives should give you plenty of space to work with (save some money) and you can get away with 10Krpm or if budgets are tight, 7200rpm. Our layout is mentioned in my previous mail. -- Thanks, James Rallo Trusswood Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.Trusswood.Net Tele: (321) 383-0366 Fax: (321) 383-0362 -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Windows Server Configuration
Sorry, I think I had James and David backwards there! On 8/25/06, Dan Buettner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: James, with just 4 drives, you can set up one big RAID 10 disk (usually called a logical disk, with Dell PERCs I think it's a container), and then partition it for your different needs. If you have 4 73 GB disks, you probably have around 135 GB formatted capacity with RAID 10; I'd do something like this for my own MySQL server in that situation: 20 GB C partition for OS and software binaries 10 GB D partition for MySQL temp space 20-40 GB E partition for MySQL binary logs (if you're using them) remainder F partiition for MySQL data directory Your needs will vary depending on whether this server does only MySQL or other serving as well, how big your databases are, whether you want to keep binary logs for some period of time, and how large those binary logs are. I agree with David's response that you want redundancy for the OS as well. Drives fail, plain and simple. The single best thing you can do with servers is plan for hardware failure. Having your data on redundant disks is great, but if your OS is on a single drive, when (not if, when) that one fails, your data is redundant but still unavailable. You may pay a small performance penalty having the OS on the same physical drives with your MySQL, but I'd make that sacrifice for the redundancy, no question. On the other hand if you want to add a couple of drives and make a separate RAID 1 pair for the OS, go for it. Best, Dan On 8/25/06, JamesDR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Lazo wrote: I'm sorry to bother you again with this. So we have the server but we have 4 Drives and now that I'm trying to set up the RAID10 I'm starting to think I needed 5 Drives one for the OS?. Please advise. David. snip We built one pretty close to this recently. You definitely want to go with raid10, make sure the controller is hardware and not software raid (uses the CPU for everything, opposed to having a dedicated on board CPU) The more spindles the better, in order to use RAID10 you need an even set of disks, min 4. Raid10 gives you the best performance while keeping data redundancy. I would set it up like this: Raid1 -- OS (you could use slower/smaller drives here) Raid10 -- all of the mysql data -- as many spindles as you can afford. If you have to swap out 73GB drives for for the 146's to get more spindles, I would do that (that would increase cost a bit, but the disk sub system here would be the bottle neck, so you want to have it as fast as you can get it -- and still be affordable) This all depends on what your data environment looks like as well. We have RAID 1 for the OS (requires 2 disks) If you are doing data redundancy for the DB, you'd want to also do data redundancy for the OS... If it is a windows server, 32GB drives should give you plenty of space to work with (save some money) and you can get away with 10Krpm or if budgets are tight, 7200rpm. Our layout is mentioned in my previous mail. -- Thanks, James Rallo Trusswood Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.Trusswood.Net Tele: (321) 383-0366 Fax: (321) 383-0362 -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Windows Server Configuration
Thanx again. For the time being, we will keep 4 drives with Dan's suggestion. OS and MySQL running from there. On 8/25/06 11:03 AM, Dan Buettner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: James, with just 4 drives, you can set up one big RAID 10 disk (usually called a logical disk, with Dell PERCs I think it's a container), and then partition it for your different needs. If you have 4 73 GB disks, you probably have around 135 GB formatted capacity with RAID 10; I'd do something like this for my own MySQL server in that situation: 20 GB C partition for OS and software binaries 10 GB D partition for MySQL temp space 20-40 GB E partition for MySQL binary logs (if you're using them) remainder F partiition for MySQL data directory Your needs will vary depending on whether this server does only MySQL or other serving as well, how big your databases are, whether you want to keep binary logs for some period of time, and how large those binary logs are. I agree with David's response that you want redundancy for the OS as well. Drives fail, plain and simple. The single best thing you can do with servers is plan for hardware failure. Having your data on redundant disks is great, but if your OS is on a single drive, when (not if, when) that one fails, your data is redundant but still unavailable. You may pay a small performance penalty having the OS on the same physical drives with your MySQL, but I'd make that sacrifice for the redundancy, no question. On the other hand if you want to add a couple of drives and make a separate RAID 1 pair for the OS, go for it. Best, Dan On 8/25/06, JamesDR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Windows Server Configuration
Just noticed that you said partitions. I am assuming that you meat multiple drives in a raid array. Bill David Lazo said: Thanx again. For the time being, we will keep 4 drives with Dan's suggestion. OS and MySQL running from there. On 8/25/06 11:03 AM, Dan Buettner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: James, with just 4 drives, you can set up one big RAID 10 disk (usually called a logical disk, with Dell PERCs I think it's a container), and then partition it for your different needs. If you have 4 73 GB disks, you probably have around 135 GB formatted capacity with RAID 10; I'd do something like this for my own MySQL server in that situation: 20 GB C partition for OS and software binaries 10 GB D partition for MySQL temp space 20-40 GB E partition for MySQL binary logs (if you're using them) remainder F partiition for MySQL data directory Your needs will vary depending on whether this server does only MySQL or other serving as well, how big your databases are, whether you want to keep binary logs for some period of time, and how large those binary logs are. I agree with David's response that you want redundancy for the OS as well. Drives fail, plain and simple. The single best thing you can do with servers is plan for hardware failure. Having your data on redundant disks is great, but if your OS is on a single drive, when (not if, when) that one fails, your data is redundant but still unavailable. You may pay a small performance penalty having the OS on the same physical drives with your MySQL, but I'd make that sacrifice for the redundancy, no question. On the other hand if you want to add a couple of drives and make a separate RAID 1 pair for the OS, go for it. Best, Dan On 8/25/06, JamesDR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Windows Server Configuration
David Lazo wrote: We want to get: Windows Server 2003 R2, Standard x64 Edition 2- Dual Core Intel Xeon 5080, 2x2MB Cache, 3.73GHz, 1066MHz FSB 8GB 533MHz (8x1GB), Dual Ranked DIMMs 3- 146GB, SAS, 3.5-inch, 15K RPM Hard Drives What would be the recommended RAID configuration settings for a dedicated MySQL db running on this system? Also, what is the general advice for separating MySQL and the MySQL/Data on different disks? I'm sorry if this sort of question has already been answered. Any help would be appreciated. David. We built one pretty close to this recently. You definitely want to go with raid10, make sure the controller is hardware and not software raid (uses the CPU for everything, opposed to having a dedicated on board CPU) The more spindles the better, in order to use RAID10 you need an even set of disks, min 4. Raid10 gives you the best performance while keeping data redundancy. I would set it up like this: Raid1 -- OS (you could use slower/smaller drives here) Raid10 -- all of the mysql data -- as many spindles as you can afford. If you have to swap out 73GB drives for for the 146's to get more spindles, I would do that (that would increase cost a bit, but the disk sub system here would be the bottle neck, so you want to have it as fast as you can get it -- and still be affordable) This all depends on what your data environment looks like as well. -- Thanks, James -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Windows Server Configuration
I second what James recommends re: spindles and RAID 10. Better than RAID 5 for live data in my opinion; RAID 5 is decent for archival storage. You've got a pretty decent setup there otherwise - 4 CPU cores, 8 GB RAM - and you want to make sure your disks can keep things fed. As far as splitting things up: a general recommendation is to put logging (replication logging that is, not the error log necessarily) onto its own partition, ideally its own disks. Also consider putting MySQL's temp space on its own partition, ideally its own disks. Of course suddenly you're looking at a lot of disks if you really go whole-hog... The optimization section in the online manual is pretty decent, though some of the numbers are a bit dated (I saw one note this morning that said if you have at least 256 MB RAM...) Also Jeremy Zawodny's book High Performance MySQL is a good read, both in terms of optimizing your SQL/data strcuture and in choosing abnd setting up your hardware. (Third time today I've plugged that book - I don't own stock or anything, really) Dan On 8/22/06, JamesDR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Lazo wrote: We want to get: Windows Server 2003 R2, Standard x64 Edition 2- Dual Core Intel Xeon 5080, 2x2MB Cache, 3.73GHz, 1066MHz FSB 8GB 533MHz (8x1GB), Dual Ranked DIMMs 3- 146GB, SAS, 3.5-inch, 15K RPM Hard Drives What would be the recommended RAID configuration settings for a dedicated MySQL db running on this system? Also, what is the general advice for separating MySQL and the MySQL/Data on different disks? I'm sorry if this sort of question has already been answered. Any help would be appreciated. David. We built one pretty close to this recently. You definitely want to go with raid10, make sure the controller is hardware and not software raid (uses the CPU for everything, opposed to having a dedicated on board CPU) The more spindles the better, in order to use RAID10 you need an even set of disks, min 4. Raid10 gives you the best performance while keeping data redundancy. I would set it up like this: Raid1 -- OS (you could use slower/smaller drives here) Raid10 -- all of the mysql data -- as many spindles as you can afford. If you have to swap out 73GB drives for for the 146's to get more spindles, I would do that (that would increase cost a bit, but the disk sub system here would be the bottle neck, so you want to have it as fast as you can get it -- and still be affordable) This all depends on what your data environment looks like as well. -- Thanks, James -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Windows Server Configuration
Thanks for all the recommendations. On 8/22/06 1:11 PM, Dan Buettner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I second what James recommends re: spindles and RAID 10. Better than RAID 5 for live data in my opinion; RAID 5 is decent for archival storage. You've got a pretty decent setup there otherwise - 4 CPU cores, 8 GB RAM - and you want to make sure your disks can keep things fed. As far as splitting things up: a general recommendation is to put logging (replication logging that is, not the error log necessarily) onto its own partition, ideally its own disks. Also consider putting MySQL's temp space on its own partition, ideally its own disks. Of course suddenly you're looking at a lot of disks if you really go whole-hog... The optimization section in the online manual is pretty decent, though some of the numbers are a bit dated (I saw one note this morning that said if you have at least 256 MB RAM...) Also Jeremy Zawodny's book High Performance MySQL is a good read, both in terms of optimizing your SQL/data strcuture and in choosing abnd setting up your hardware. (Third time today I've plugged that book - I don't own stock or anything, really) Dan On 8/22/06, JamesDR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Lazo wrote: We want to get: Windows Server 2003 R2, Standard x64 Edition 2- Dual Core Intel Xeon 5080, 2x2MB Cache, 3.73GHz, 1066MHz FSB 8GB 533MHz (8x1GB), Dual Ranked DIMMs 3- 146GB, SAS, 3.5-inch, 15K RPM Hard Drives What would be the recommended RAID configuration settings for a dedicated MySQL db running on this system? Also, what is the general advice for separating MySQL and the MySQL/Data on different disks? I'm sorry if this sort of question has already been answered. Any help would be appreciated. David. We built one pretty close to this recently. You definitely want to go with raid10, make sure the controller is hardware and not software raid (uses the CPU for everything, opposed to having a dedicated on board CPU) The more spindles the better, in order to use RAID10 you need an even set of disks, min 4. Raid10 gives you the best performance while keeping data redundancy. I would set it up like this: Raid1 -- OS (you could use slower/smaller drives here) Raid10 -- all of the mysql data -- as many spindles as you can afford. If you have to swap out 73GB drives for for the 146's to get more spindles, I would do that (that would increase cost a bit, but the disk sub system here would be the bottle neck, so you want to have it as fast as you can get it -- and still be affordable) This all depends on what your data environment looks like as well. -- Thanks, James -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
