Take the 2-minute tour ×
Database Administrators Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for database professionals who wish to improve their database skills and learn from others in the community. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I am working on designing requirements for new SQL Server installation. I have been researching disk storage and everything seemed to point to using RAID.

However, I found this article, which suggests RAID is no longer relevant today.

Can anyone point me in the direction of where I can learn about the latest disk storage for SQL Server.

share|improve this question

closed as off-topic by Mark Storey-Smith, Max Vernon, Shawn Melton, Kin, dezso Jun 12 at 13:44

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "Shopping list question - questions about which tool, library, product or resource you should use are off-topic here because they quickly become obsolete and often are just about the preferences of the answerer. If you have an issue with or a question about a specific tool, please revise your question to conform to that scope." – Mark Storey-Smith, Max Vernon, Shawn Melton, Kin, dezso
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

1  
Even though that article is a Technet article, I wouldn't put to much faith into the whole "raid is dead" thesis. The storage spaces and pools mentioned in the article all have raid under the covers. Depending on the level of performance you required, pools might be good, traditional RAID array locally attached might be good, or SSDs might be just the what the doctor ordered. –  Max Vernon Jun 12 at 12:28

2 Answers 2

Before jumping at one article you should do a little research, after a short Google search "windows storage pools vs raid" I found this article which goes more in-depth. As far as I can tell this new tech doesn't completely replace raid but could be considered an alternative to raid ONLY if you are using windows server 2012. It also may not make sense if you already have the hardware to support hardware raid as (I'm guessing) using this new storage mechanism will increase the cpu/memory loads on your server since it has to do the storage calculations in software. So I wouldn't say RAID is no longer relevant, it just has some healthy competition.

share|improve this answer

As in the original article you linked:

The question here is this: if you’re not segregating the workload at the physical resource level, is there any need to segregate the workloads at the logical level? For example, if tempdb and my user databases are in a single pool of disk on the array, should I bother having them on multiple LUNs (Logical Disks) on the host?

For a high-performance SQL Server, you need separate physical resources. For safety, you need multiple instances. RAID 10 is usually recommended. For local storage on a physical server, use RAID arrays for anything but pet projects.

Bigger systems will use SAN systems, larger budgets, and usually a SAN administrator who can tune thing to your workload.

As a DBA, I would not use Storage Spaces for a SQL Server. That may change later as the technology matures.

share|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.