Was able to persuade management to purchase the equipment (listed
below) for 2-node cluster and SAN.

2 x Dell PowerEdge 1950 servers with 4GB ram and dual 2.50Ghz xeon
quad-core processors
Dell PowerVault MD3000i with 4x 300GB SAS drives
24-port Dell gigabit switch

Both servers have two built-in NIC's and also got 2 extra NICs for
heartbeat. More ram can be added at later stage. With configuration,
I'm planning at installing SQL 2005 Standard 64-bit and Windows 2008
Enterprise 64-bit unless someone thinks it's a bad idea. What would be
an ideal configuration (based on my hardware) in terms of RAID & disk/
luns? Don't really want to use the new hardware just for SQL i.e.
looking at using virtualization for server consolidation purposes if
possible but this is something I'll need to investigate at a later
time.

Thanks for you help

It depends.

Look at your existing I/O load and storage capacity requirements. Realize
that RAID5 will be anywhere from 1/2 to 1/4 the speed of a comparably sized
RAID1+0 array. With four drives, you don't have a lot of choice, especially
siince you need a minimum of three LUNS spread acros two physical arrays
unless you want SQL Logs and Data on the same physical disks (bad idea). I
think more disks may be in order, just to get the spindle count up.

I do agree on the SQL and Windows version choices but give yourself some
time to get used to WIndows 2008, especially in clustering.


--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior SQL Infrastructure Consultant
Microsoft SQL Server MVP


<tagtagboys (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

It depends.

Look at your existing I/O load and storage capacity requirements. Realize
that RAID5 will be anywhere from 1/2 to 1/4 the speed of a comparably sized
RAID1+0 array. With four drives, you don't have a lot of choice, especially
siince you need a minimum of three LUNS spread acros two physical arrays
unless you want SQL Logs and Data on the same physical disks (bad idea). I
think more disks may be in order, just to get the spindle count up.

I do agree on the SQL and Windows version choices but give yourself some
time to get used to WIndows 2008, especially in clustering.


--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior SQL Infrastructure Consultant
Microsoft SQL Server MVP


<tagtagboys (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

It depends.

Look at your existing I/O load and storage capacity requirements. Realize
that RAID5 will be anywhere from 1/2 to 1/4 the speed of a comparably sized
RAID1+0 array. With four drives, you don't have a lot of choice, especially
siince you need a minimum of three LUNS spread acros two physical arrays
unless you want SQL Logs and Data on the same physical disks (bad idea). I
think more disks may be in order, just to get the spindle count up.

I do agree on the SQL and Windows version choices but give yourself some
time to get used to WIndows 2008, especially in clustering.


--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior SQL Infrastructure Consultant
Microsoft SQL Server MVP


<tagtagboys (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

It depends.

Look at your existing I/O load and storage capacity requirements. Realize
that RAID5 will be anywhere from 1/2 to 1/4 the speed of a comparably sized
RAID1+0 array. With four drives, you don't have a lot of choice, especially
siince you need a minimum of three LUNS spread acros two physical arrays
unless you want SQL Logs and Data on the same physical disks (bad idea). I
think more disks may be in order, just to get the spindle count up.

I do agree on the SQL and Windows version choices but give yourself some
time to get used to WIndows 2008, especially in clustering.


--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior SQL Infrastructure Consultant
Microsoft SQL Server MVP


<tagtagboys (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

It depends.

Look at your existing I/O load and storage capacity requirements. Realize
that RAID5 will be anywhere from 1/2 to 1/4 the speed of a comparably sized
RAID1+0 array. With four drives, you don't have a lot of choice, especially
siince you need a minimum of three LUNS spread acros two physical arrays
unless you want SQL Logs and Data on the same physical disks (bad idea). I
think more disks may be in order, just to get the spindle count up.

I do agree on the SQL and Windows version choices but give yourself some
time to get used to WIndows 2008, especially in clustering.


--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior SQL Infrastructure Consultant
Microsoft SQL Server MVP


<tagtagboys (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

It depends.

Look at your existing I/O load and storage capacity requirements. Realize
that RAID5 will be anywhere from 1/2 to 1/4 the speed of a comparably sized
RAID1+0 array. With four drives, you don't have a lot of choice, especially
siince you need a minimum of three LUNS spread acros two physical arrays
unless you want SQL Logs and Data on the same physical disks (bad idea). I
think more disks may be in order, just to get the spindle count up.

I do agree on the SQL and Windows version choices but give yourself some
time to get used to WIndows 2008, especially in clustering.


--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior SQL Infrastructure Consultant
Microsoft SQL Server MVP


<tagtagboys (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

It depends.

Look at your existing I/O load and storage capacity requirements. Realize
that RAID5 will be anywhere from 1/2 to 1/4 the speed of a comparably sized
RAID1+0 array. With four drives, you don't have a lot of choice, especially
siince you need a minimum of three LUNS spread acros two physical arrays
unless you want SQL Logs and Data on the same physical disks (bad idea). I
think more disks may be in order, just to get the spindle count up.

I do agree on the SQL and Windows version choices but give yourself some
time to get used to WIndows 2008, especially in clustering.


--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior SQL Infrastructure Consultant
Microsoft SQL Server MVP


<tagtagboys (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

It depends.

Look at your existing I/O load and storage capacity requirements. Realize
that RAID5 will be anywhere from 1/2 to 1/4 the speed of a comparably sized
RAID1+0 array. With four drives, you don't have a lot of choice, especially
siince you need a minimum of three LUNS spread acros two physical arrays
unless you want SQL Logs and Data on the same physical disks (bad idea). I
think more disks may be in order, just to get the spindle count up.

I do agree on the SQL and Windows version choices but give yourself some
time to get used to WIndows 2008, especially in clustering.


--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior SQL Infrastructure Consultant
Microsoft SQL Server MVP


<tagtagboys (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

It depends.

Look at your existing I/O load and storage capacity requirements. Realize
that RAID5 will be anywhere from 1/2 to 1/4 the speed of a comparably sized
RAID1+0 array. With four drives, you don't have a lot of choice, especially
siince you need a minimum of three LUNS spread acros two physical arrays
unless you want SQL Logs and Data on the same physical disks (bad idea). I
think more disks may be in order, just to get the spindle count up.

I do agree on the SQL and Windows version choices but give yourself some
time to get used to WIndows 2008, especially in clustering.


--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior SQL Infrastructure Consultant
Microsoft SQL Server MVP


<tagtagboys (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote