|Subject:||sqlserver 2005: indexes on raid-0?|
|Posted by:||boa (boase…@gmail.com)|
|Date:||Sun, 20 Aug 2006|
I'm currently planning disk layouts and use for a new version of our
database. The current version has all data and indexes in the default
filegroup, placed on one big raid-5 array(6 drives) along with the
transaction log. Performance is not the best, as you may imagine...
Next week we will add another 14 drives and organize them in different
combos of raid-10 and raid-1, and then create several filegroups and
place tables and index data on separate physical drives.
Most of the database will be placed on a raid-10 array, and some parts
(tables/indexes/translog) will have their own raid-1 drives.
I've been playing with the rather incorrect idea of using raid-0 instead
of raid-1 on one or two of the new disk arrays we're adding and then
place (some) indexes on those drives.
The theory is that even if one drive fails, the db will stay up and it
will be easy to recreate the indexes when the disk has been replaced.
(We will have one hot spare available)
Does anyone know how well sqlserver 2005 handles disk loss in such a
Any other comments? ;-)