Come on Roy, more is always better than not enough. That only gives me more
questions. What is in this XML and why are you using XML? Is this one
insert or 100 per XML? How many drives do you have the potential to work
with? Will they be internal to the server, direct attached or a SAN?
Bottom line is if you are worried about performance and availability you
should be looking at a minimum of something like this.
2 Disk Raid 1 for the Log files (this can often be placed on the same RAID 1
as the OS if there are no other apps running on this server)
At least a 4 disk Raid 10 for the User and Tempdb data files.
How many more disks depends on how you will use the data, how much memory
you have etc. In SQL 2005 it is often good to separate the tempdb data files
from the user data files onto its own Raid array as well. If it is just 20
trans per second you are probably OK with the above mentioned arrangement.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
[quoted text, click to view] "Roy Goldhammer" <roy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23x4ZqjX3HHA.5240@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Your are right andrew.
>
> I didn't gave enouth information
>
> As start point i'm condidering the hardware and then the software.
>
> The program should get 20 xml's in second, by the data that get to the
> system only part of that is being shown. Therefor the 60% input and 40%
> output.
>
> what is the best recomdation for this type of thing? hardware and
> software?
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:%23WhVPWT3HHA.4184@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> If all you have is two disks and that is an upgrade then you are in
>> pretty rough shape my friend. If you are really worried about performance
>> none of those options are ideal. But this all depends on exactly what you
>> are doing. 60% changes does not give enough information to give an
>> intelligent answer. Is this 60% of 10K transactions per second or 1 per
>> minute? Is this 100GB of data changes or 1MB? Obviously it will be
>> somewhere in between but where exactly means all the difference in the
>> world on what you disk setup needs to be. Please provide more information
>> so we can give an answer more suited to your situation.
>>
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Roy Goldhammer" <roy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:OI7MEhP3HHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> Hello there
>>>
>>> I have server that i need to upgrate it for better performance
>>>
>>> the application use the data is for 60% Data change and 40% data pool.
>>>
>>> It is very important for the company avilability and performance:
>>>
>>> Iim wondering what is the best, here is my platforms i'm thinking:
>>> 1. Set two diffrent hard drives and set the data and log files in
>>> different disks, in order to improve changes
>>> 2. Using raid 1 instead which allow the same thing as split the data and
>>> log and also allow spliting data itself
>>> 3. Using raid 5 instead which add also redundency when one of the hard
>>> drives fallen down the backup is start working
>>>
>>> Is there another way for better as part of hard drives, arrange ect... ?
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
