Jump to content



Photo

HDD Upgrade - Hyper-V - SQL and Exchange DBs

Answered Go to the full post hdd hyper-v server 2012 sql exchange 2010 database vhd

  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 Roger H.

Roger H.

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 20
  • Joined: 18-August 01
  • Location: Germany
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Nexus 5

Posted 27 September 2013 - 16:21

Ok some back story here: http://www.neowin.ne...storage-sizing/

 

So basically I have 4 x 300GB SAS 15K RPM in RAID-10 totaling ~550GB.

 

With some VHDs and Images use growing figured I needed to upgrade to get some breathing room. Have about 80GB now with limited shadow copies available..

 

In general Exchange 2010 now relies less on HDD I/O as far as I read because it basically does everything in RAM then eventually writes it to storage so not really worried about that so much. They've made it so efficient now you can mount the storage from a regular SMB NAS share. :)

 

SQL of-course is more HDD I/O intensive but I think SQL 2008 R2 is similar to Exchange in that it sucks up RAM and does transactions there then records them to the DB. it's still more reliant on HDD speeds (latency) but we don't even use it so much anymore as the software we did use is now hosted but we still use it for a small software with 2-3 users at a time so doubt that's very I/O intensive :p

 

Now finally down to the question - For the storage needs needing to grow would using 4 x 1TB SAS 7200RPM drives have a big loss in performance?

 

I doubt it but figured i'd get some opinions. I'm guessing the 1TB aerial density would make up for some of the lost throughput of 15K. Normal 7200RPM SATA drives are pushing 120MB/s each now. So i'm guessing in a RAID10 they can do 300-400MB/s which should be more than enough IMO.

 

So anyone have any ideas or comments about this switch?



Best Answer sc302 , 21 November 2013 - 01:41

I would go with the nearline's or the red's for any sort of performance over the standard sata's.

Go to the full post

Edited by SHoTTa35, 27 September 2013 - 16:34. Reason: Changed SATA - SAS 7200RPM



#2 +Xenosion

Xenosion

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 04-September 07
  • Location: Palm Beach, FL

Posted 27 September 2013 - 16:27

While I hardly ever like to use consumer drives, they should do fine in performance in comparison to your 15K drives especially if you have the RAM to load your entire databases to. I would be more concerned with the reliability of the SATA drives in a RAID - drop outs mainly. I'm sure you're getting the correct enterprise edition SATA drives though.



#3 OP Roger H.

Roger H.

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 20
  • Joined: 18-August 01
  • Location: Germany
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Nexus 5

Posted 27 September 2013 - 16:37

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16822148868

 

Actually I misspoke as those are SAS drives as well. They show at 150MB/s each.

 

I tested my 2x146GB SAS 15K drives (C Drive in RAID1 for the OS) and got this:

 

146GB 15K R1.png

 

Not able to test the RAID10 now because it's busy with I/Os :p - well actually I did and got like 136MB/s but as I said it's busy at this moment.



#4 sc302

sc302

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 24
  • Joined: 12-July 05
  • Location: NJ, USA

Posted 27 September 2013 - 16:38

The only sata drives I would use is near-line sas drives, that being said they are no better than sata drives as far as performance goes. 

 

http://www.techrepub...ks-compare/5323

 

What I would do in your situation is start looking at san technologies if you are looking to expand your drives.  Get a san solution where you can add on storage or shelves as needed so that way you aren't bottlenecked into a server solution where you can only add x drives.  Most of my servers any more have a raid 1 for the os and have a san backend for storage growth.  I can chop up the san as needed creating luns or drives for the servers.  Personally I would just vm everything and do the same adding storage as needed to the array, and the guest oses wouldn't be any the wiser.



#5 sc302

sc302

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 24
  • Joined: 12-July 05
  • Location: NJ, USA

Posted 27 September 2013 - 16:39

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16822148868

 

Actually I misspoke as those are SAS drives as well. They show at 150MB/s each.

 

I tested my 2x146GB SAS 15K drives (C Drive in RAID1 for the OS) and got this:

 

attachicon.gif146GB 15K R1.png

 

Not able to test the RAID10 now because it's busy with I/Os :p - well actually I did and got like 136MB/s but as I said it's busy at this moment.

that isn't a sas drive, that is a nearline sas drive.  the rpm of the drive is a dead giveaway.  nearline sas is a sata drive with a sas interface, which operate at sata speeds all the while having a sas interface.  if these are your drives, going to a sata drive will give you the same performance.  Read my link in the previous post.

 

nearline sas=enterprise sata drives, nothing more.



#6 mcloum

mcloum

    Neowinian

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 07-November 02
  • Location: UK

Posted 21 October 2013 - 15:50

 

 

SQL of-course is more HDD I/O intensive but I think SQL 2008 R2 is similar to Exchange in that it sucks up RAM and does transactions there then records them to the DB. it's still more reliant on HDD speeds (latency) but we don't even use it so much anymore as the software we did use is now hosted but we still use it for a small software with 2-3 users at a time so doubt that's very I/O intensive :p

 

 

SQL will use as much RAM as you let it, you can limit its use is SSMS. Also transaction Logs are recommended to be on as fast a disk as you can give it. Logs are generated then commited to the database when a checkpoint is reached or the database is backed up.



#7 OP Roger H.

Roger H.

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 20
  • Joined: 18-August 01
  • Location: Germany
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Nexus 5

Posted 20 November 2013 - 15:31

Ok getting ready to buy these now as another drive showing predicted failure and no more spares. So instead of buying another 300GB 15,000RPM SAS figured i'd get the above or:
 
 
Western Digital Red NAS Hard Drive WD10EFRX 1TB IntelliPower 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive
http://www.newegg.co...371&ignorebbr=1
 
Since technically the RAID10 is just sorta a NAS anyways (file storage and VMs files).
 
Would it make much sense to go there instead?
 
 
Or to keep it "Enterprise" with 5yr warranty (SATA drive still)
 
 
HGST 0A39289 1TB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" x 1/3H ULTRASTAR A7K2000 25.4MM 32MB Internal Hard Drive Bare Drive

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16822145420



#8 +Xenosion

Xenosion

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 04-September 07
  • Location: Palm Beach, FL

Posted 20 November 2013 - 15:47

I don't know anything about the HGST drive other than I see it's a Western Digital company. I tried to look up some benchmarks but couldn't find the model to compare. I believe the IntelliPower drives can reach up to 7200RPM and with the larger cache, the Red drive should outperform the HGST. I've been shopping around myself and I'll be upgrading my server to six 2TB Red drives (from 1TB Green drives). It will probably be just down to your value of the warranty. Is it worth an extra $6 per drive? I'll probably be upgrading again before 3 years is up.



#9 OP Roger H.

Roger H.

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 20
  • Joined: 18-August 01
  • Location: Germany
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Nexus 5

Posted 20 November 2013 - 17:05

I meant to compare those new lower priced drives to the first Seagate SAS:

 

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16822148868 $115 x 4 = $460

 

vs

 

The Hitachi (WD now owns them as you mentioned) and just normal WD Red Drives instead. ($312 - 350).

 

The extra $100 is not that big of a deal but if it makes no difference in performance wise or reliability then might as well save :p.

 

 

----------------

And then there's the SATA version of the same drive:

 

http://www.amazon.co...W/ref=pd_cp_e_0



#10 +Xenosion

Xenosion

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 04-September 07
  • Location: Palm Beach, FL

Posted 20 November 2013 - 17:23

Well I'd imagine the Seagate would be a little faster than the Red and the Red a little faster than the Hitachi. I would still go for the Red.



#11 sc302

sc302

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 24
  • Joined: 12-July 05
  • Location: NJ, USA

Posted 21 November 2013 - 01:41   Best Answer

I would go with the nearline's or the red's for any sort of performance over the standard sata's.