RAID for FMS

[mr_vodka]

Ok here are the specs on our next prod server.

HP DL360R05 DC 2X 51600 4MB 2GB SAS

HP 2GB KIT PC2-5300 FBD (Additional RAM upgraded to 4GB)

AVOCENT AVR SRV MOD FOR VGA PS2

6 - HP 72GB 3G PLUG SAS 15K SFF HD

http://h18004.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/12476_na/12476_na.html

Since FileMaker Server does not support 64-bit, there is no point of running Server Enterprise or upgrading to 8GB of RAM. Hopefully in the next few years FMI will take advantage of this.

Ok now what to do with my 6 drives. Do I run it as the OS being RAID 1, and RAID 5 or 1+0 for FM Server? or just the data files on RAID 5 or 1+0? or something else? Feedback?

[Steven H. Blackwell]

Looks pretty good at first blush. Use Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition. It is the certified OS.

Second, if using RAID, be sure to have a ahrdware controller, not a software run.

Some organizations who have elected not to sue RAID have a 3 drive configuration, with the OS and FMS on Drive 1, the databases on Drive 2, and the local abckup and logs on Drive 3.

Steven

[Ender]

I think I have a RAID 0+1, using four drives (with an Xserve RAID). Work great.

[mr_vodka]

Steven,

No we will definately be using hardware RAID configurations as well as server 2003 standard. I was only hoping that one day FMI will create a version of server that supports 64 bit.

As for the RAID configurations, I ask because normally with SQL server, RAID1 is used for the application and RAID5 for for the data such as 2 x 72GB 15K drives mirrored and 4 x 72GB 15K drives Raid5. With Oracle though, the usual configuration is RAID 1+0, such as 3 x 72GB 15K striped and mirrored to 3 x 72GB 15K drives.

I was thinking about doing a similar setup but wasnt sure which model would work best. Perhaps a hybrid of some sort? Any performance issues? Should I skip the RAID all together and just depend on backups?

[mr_vodka]

Hmmm. 0+1? wouldnt that be overkill?

[Ender]

I don't know, it seemed right. If one drive fails, the other striped set continues to function and can rebuild the replacement drive. If a controller fails, the striped set running off the other controller still functions. But there are still performance advantages of each mirror split into a striped pair.

My understanding is that other configurations (like RAID 5 or RAID 1+0) might perform better since the data access is split among the controllers (whereas in a 0+1, it's essentially mirrored to each), but I wanted the redundancy in case a drive OR a controller went down. I don't keep spare controllers on hand, so no telling how long it would take to get a new one in there should one fail.