Speed is not the issue with RAID 5 vs. RAID 10.
Having experienced a 2 disk failure at the same time (raid 10 gives you
a good shot at surviving that type of failure), that is one very good
reason I will never allow RAID 5 for Vantage again. Besides the fact
that RAID 5 is not a supported configuration for a progress database.
Just my $.02
Aaron Hoyt
Vantage Plastics
Joe Luster wrote:
Having experienced a 2 disk failure at the same time (raid 10 gives you
a good shot at surviving that type of failure), that is one very good
reason I will never allow RAID 5 for Vantage again. Besides the fact
that RAID 5 is not a supported configuration for a progress database.
Just my $.02
Aaron Hoyt
Vantage Plastics
Joe Luster wrote:
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> We run Vantage in a VM just fine. However, we are SQL and the SQL
> server is not in a VM.
>
> The more disks you have in your RAID configuration, the faster the
> speed. We run our SQL DBs on a SAN which is RAID 6 across 14 drives.
> That blew away our RAID 10 configuration with only 4 drives.
> Sometimes, a RAID 10 configuration can be slower than a RAID 5
> configuration depending on the amount of drives used. Very rarely though.
>
> Joe Luster
> Network Administrator
> Cold Jet, LLC
> 455 Wards Corner Road
> Loveland, Ohio 45140
> 513-716-6308
> 513-831-1209 (fax)
> www.coldjet.com<http://www.coldjet.com <http://www.coldjet.com>>
> [cid:image001.jpg@01C9021C.589724D0
> <mailto:image001.jpg%4001C9021C.589724D0>]
> Setting industry standards in dry ice technology and solutions for
> over 20 years.
>
> From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>] On
> Behalf Of Charles Carden
> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 9:55 AM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [Vantage] Hard drive configuration for Vantage Server
>
> Charlie,
>
> Your instructor is absolutely correct in the need to have your server
> configured with Raid 1 and Raid 10. The amount of gain that you will
> see will be dependent upon the amount of memory you have in your
> server. Also, never run Vantage on a VM.
>
> If you can install a 64 bit operating system with at least 8 to 10 GB
> of memory (dependent upon the number of users) you will also see a
> great improvement in background processes. We saw as much as a 400%
> improvement in some processes by going 64 bit. You need to assign as
> much memory as possible to your database (dependent upon DB size).
>
> From: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>]
> On Behalf Of Charlie Wilson
> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 6:54 AM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Vantage] Hard drive configuration for Vantage Server
>
> All,
>
> I recently went to the admin class for training and pretty much
> learned that
> the way our server's hard drives are configured is no good. According
> to the
> instructor he recommended that the OS / APP should sit on a Raid 1
> drive and
> the DB should sit on a raid 10 (1+0) drive. Currently everything sits on a
> single raid 5 drive that is also shared by several other servers (VM). I
> was wondering if any of you all had experimented with different RAID
> configurations and seen a large gain in having the raid configurations set
> as stated by the instructor. I would like to recommend to my company
> that we
> reconfigure this server to the configurations as recommended by the
> instructor but before I do so I wanted to see if it was going to be worth
> the money and time we will have to invest to make these changes.
>
> I plan to set aside a raid 1 and raid 10 that will be for our server and
> that will not be shared by any other servers. In order to do this I
> will end
> up having to buy more SAS drives and basically pull everything off the
> server and rebuild it.
>
> ~Charlie
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> ________________________________
> DISCLAIMER:
> This e-mail, including attachments, may include confidential and/or
> proprietary information, and may be used only by the person or entity
> to which it is addressed. If the reader of this e-mail is not the
> intended recipient or his or her authorized agent, the reader is
> hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of
> this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
> please notify the sender by replying to this message and delete this
> e-mail immediately.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>