SQL Server and RAID 5
SQL Server and RAID 5
The RAID 5 IOMeter results were interesting and peculiar enough to warrant another testing round with SQLIO. First, we start with the least useful but "pedal to the metal" benchmark: sequential reads and writes.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ba6e2/ba6e2dd80eeff1143d28c952c68ac6436d522f72" alt="RAID 5 SQLIO Sequential Read (64KB)"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5c3d3/5c3d313b291c5b1246ff4502a4366faa33c187f5" alt="RAID 5 SQLIO Sequential Write (64KB)"
Although hardly surprising, both results are another confirmation that the SLC drives are limited by the SATA interface and the RAID controller combination.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c65c2/c65c2d4f625716fdf606cb4b05f54ceaaf2f8761" alt="RAID 5 SQLIO Random Read (8KB)"
Random reads perform as expected. The SLC SSD drives completely annihilate the magnetic disk competition.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/445cb/445cbc3aea6bfd6acfb0580bcf4231d3a7a01d99" alt="RAID 5 SQLIO Random Write (8KB)"
Random writes in RAID 5 are not only a complete disaster, they also confirm our theory that adding more X25-E SLC drives does not help as the storage processor cannot deliver the necessary RAID-5 processing that the SLC drives demand. The more drives you add, the worse the random writing performance becomes.
ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7orrAp5utnZOde6S7zGiKoaenZJavsMSxZmtvY26MpJzAoJx2bVaWua2JpZqjrJ1WqLyzwJxpXamZl5qKcnyFrKOun20%3D