Timeline for Installation of SQL Server RAID 10 vs RAID 5
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 26, 2018 at 22:44 | answer | added | SQLRaptor | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jul 26, 2018 at 21:06 | answer | added | enorl76 | timeline score: 0 | |
| May 17, 2013 at 15:53 | answer | added | AbuTaareq | timeline score: 3 | |
| May 11, 2013 at 12:46 | review | Close votes | |||
| May 12, 2013 at 0:11 | |||||
| May 11, 2013 at 12:34 | comment | added | Jon Seigel | It's impossible to give a focused answer to this question without more information. What is your read/write ratio? What is the typical workload? How good is your SAN's caching mechanism, and how much cache is there? Is this data mission-critical or is it archive data? And on and on... | |
| May 10, 2013 at 21:30 | comment | added | RolandoMySQLDBA | Although I am not a SQL Server person, I can really say that RAID5 is insane : dba.stackexchange.com/questions/12977/… | |
| May 10, 2013 at 21:15 | comment | added | SchmitzIT | RAID 5 for C sounds like a waste of money. If it's for TempDB, then move that to it's separate RAID 10 partition if you can. Other than that, RAID 10, while more expensive, does offer better performance for relational systems with heavy WRITEs. Whether your case meets that is not something we could assess, but you can measure that. | |
| May 10, 2013 at 20:27 | comment | added | adopilot | maybe this can help dba.stackexchange.com/questions/7773/… | |
| May 10, 2013 at 20:20 | answer | added | Kevin Edward Kline | timeline score: 18 | |
| May 10, 2013 at 20:06 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackDBAs/status/332949898959912960 | ||
| May 10, 2013 at 19:16 | review | First posts | |||
| May 10, 2013 at 19:24 | |||||
| May 10, 2013 at 19:06 | answer | added | Aaron Bertrand | timeline score: 13 | |
| May 10, 2013 at 18:59 | history | asked | Masa Rumi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |