UNSOLVED

dcm11

updated

19 years ago

D

dcm11

9 Posts

0

1322

September 4th, 2007 18:00

RAID 3?

I am reconfiguring the storage in our CX600 and was wondering if I should be setting up some of the RAID Groups as RAID 3 instead of RAID5 as they were previously. We have 3 types of servers that use the SAN storage, SQL, Exchange, VMWare ESX. I know that RAID 5 imposes a large penalty for write operations and thought that maybe RAID 3 would be a better choice, but I am not sure if that is the case with applications like SQL and Exchange that have a lot of small I/O (or VMFS volumes for that matter).

The SQL servers are core to our business and do HEAVY processing 24x7 so any improvement in performance helps greatly.

The Exchange servers are fairly light and I am not overly concerned about running them on RAID 5 unless RAID 3 is just a no-brainer (they currenlty run on RAID 5 local disks and soon will be clustered).

VMware is used for everything else, general purpose servers, web servers, domain controllers, application servers, etc. Again, not as concerned about them but I am not sure how VMFS or the general I/O pattern of VMWare would perform on RAID 3.

My question is, should I use RAID 3 for any of these? Pros/Cons?

I realize that the best solution to any of these would be RAID 1/0 but at this time I cannot afford the cost of losing half of my storage space, although I will be pushing it for next years budget! :)

Thanks for any input and assistance.
  • 751

    0

    Posted September 5th, 2007 01:00

    You tried having a look at Best Practices guide for SQL, Exchange.? What do they have to say.
  • 751

    0

    Posted September 5th, 2007 04:00

    check this link for more uses and applications of Raid -3
    http://searchstorage.techtarget.com/tip/0,289483,sid5_gci1077519,00.html

    Of 25 Clariions i've installed i never used a RAID-3.
  • bodnarg

    2 Intern

    385 Posts

    751

    0

    Posted September 5th, 2007 04:00

    I would strongly recommend not using Raid-3 for SQL or Exchange as they are very likely to perform random reads/writes which perform terribly in a single parity drive environment. In fact given the small random I/O nature of most SQL and Exchange databases Raid-5 may perform just as well as striped mirrors for your "lightly" used.

    Raid-3 is really only well suited for sequential read/write applications so unless your SQL application does a lot of sequential I/O switching from Raid-5 will definitely have a negative impact on your performance.
  • drozz

    77 Posts

    751

    0

    Posted September 11th, 2007 10:00

    I've experienced slower performance on SQL and Exchange using RAID 3 and do not use that RAID type for those. I only use RAID 3 if I have ATA storage that are used for Clone targets
  • RRR

    6 Operator

    5739 Posts

    751

    0

    Posted September 21st, 2007 05:00

    RAID3 is the best practice for ATA drives as those drives should be used for mostly sequential I/O's and RAID3 outperforms RAID5 on sequential access.

    Remember to create only 1 large LUN on each RAID3 RAID group to prevent random I/O from happening. ATA is best used for streaming apps, like backup.
  • julianne

    92 Posts

    751

    0

    Posted September 24th, 2007 14:00

    Good point, RRR.
    We just configured a CX3-80 in-house for exchange 2007. We have Raid 1+0 for the primary storage and RAID-3 for the online backups. It's an ideal RAID configuration for streaming/sequential I/O - as you stated.
    That said, RAID3 is NOT recommended for exchange SQL or any other application that has much RANDOM I/O.

    For more info - article entitled "RAID 3: What is it Good For?"
    http://searchstorage.techtarget.com.au/topics/article.asp?DocID=1077519&NodeID=298689

    Regards - jq