steven08

Distinguished
Nov 9, 2008
2
0
18,510
I am going to upgrade my Transaction Processing Server (still running Window 2000 Server OS). It has extensive Read/Write operations from time to time. R/W performance (especially the write) is my top priority while reliability is the second priority (as I will still carry out scheduled backup daily). I do not know which would be the best configuration :( :

Raid 10 using 4 SATA II 3.0Gb/sec HD (Intel Server board has onboard Raid 0, 1, 5, & 10) OR
a single 15K SAS HD

Please kindly give me some advise

Thanks a lot.
 

br3nd064

Distinguished
Aug 20, 2008
807
0
18,990
If you're not concerned with reliability, I think 4 drives in raid 0 would be the fastest for overall bandwidth. If you're doing a lot of small read/writes, though, the 15k drive would be better.
 

steven08

Distinguished
Nov 9, 2008
2
0
18,510
Thanks for all the useful advises. I studied the benchmarks charts in Tom's Hardware. The IO Meter File Server benchmark of a single SAS drive (Seagate Cheetah 15K.5) is way out perform any RAID configuration:

Cheetach 15K.5 SAS HDD == 2075.03
RAID 0 (4 drives) == 960.18
RAID 10 (4 drives) == 812.23

For the sequential read and write, the RAID is better though:

Cheetach 15K.5 SAS HDD == 107.80 (Ave Read Transfer) / 104.70 (Ave Write Transfer)
RAID 0 (4 drives) == 302.20 (Ave Read Transfer) / 273.30 (Ave Write Transfer)
RAID 10 (4 drives) == 153.60 (Ave Read Transfer) / 154.80 (Ave Write Transfer)

However, for a more meaningful comparison, I want to know what kind of hard drives are being used in these RAID configuration for these benchmark tests. I looked around but there was no description for the hardware configuaration under the RAID Matrix Charts. Does anyone has the answers?

Thanks again.