Pls recommend Raid 10 stripe size for SQL Server

Is there a rough rule of thumb for the stripe size to use for SQL Server
2000?
I am going to reorganise our disks. Assume 4 disk raid 10 for log and two 6
disk raid 10 sets for data.
Environment fairly mixed. Probably more reads than writes but still plenty
of updates etc.
Controllers have 128Mb battery backed up cache.
Thanks
Paul
Unless the controller manufacturer recommends otherwise specifically for SQL
server, go with their default stripe size. That is typically what the
hardware and firmware has been tuned to run. Any minor gains at the SQL
layer would likely be offset by a less than optimal setting at the
controller layer.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Paul Cahill" <nospam@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:egvaRGbfFHA.3124@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Is there a rough rule of thumb for the stripe size to use for SQL Server
> 2000?
> I am going to reorganise our disks. Assume 4 disk raid 10 for log and two
> 6 disk raid 10 sets for data.
> Environment fairly mixed. Probably more reads than writes but still plenty
> of updates etc.
> Controllers have 128Mb battery backed up cache.
> Thanks
> Paul
>
|||Thanks Geoff.
I guess I was just wondering give the more random nature of database calls
and sequential nature of log I/O.
Does Sql read/write in a particular batch/block size eg 8K.
Paul
"Geoff N. Hiten" <sqlcraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OtSmaKbfFHA.3124@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Unless the controller manufacturer recommends otherwise specifically for
> SQL server, go with their default stripe size. That is typically what the
> hardware and firmware has been tuned to run. Any minor gains at the SQL
> layer would likely be offset by a less than optimal setting at the
> controller layer.
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> "Paul Cahill" <nospam@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:egvaRGbfFHA.3124@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
|||Data pages are 8K. Extents (allocation units and read-ahead increments) are
64K. SQL servers tend to do a log more reading than writing. Sequential
data reads will probably be in 64K increments while random reads will be in
8K blocks. Log writes tend to be small and sequential, hence the
recommendation to separate logs and data onto separate spindle sets as you
have done. As I recommended before, let the controller work at its best
which is almost always the default settings.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Paul Cahill" <nospam@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uGblSNbfFHA.3616@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Geoff.
> I guess I was just wondering give the more random nature of database calls
> and sequential nature of log I/O.
> Does Sql read/write in a particular batch/block size eg 8K.
> Paul
> "Geoff N. Hiten" <sqlcraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OtSmaKbfFHA.3124@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
|||It's a very rare opportunity to work on the system (24/7). Just wanted to do
all I could.
Thanks again
Paul
"Geoff N. Hiten" <sqlcraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:umcRsSbfFHA.2644@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Data pages are 8K. Extents (allocation units and read-ahead increments)
> are 64K. SQL servers tend to do a log more reading than writing.
> Sequential data reads will probably be in 64K increments while random
> reads will be in 8K blocks. Log writes tend to be small and sequential,
> hence the recommendation to separate logs and data onto separate spindle
> sets as you have done. As I recommended before, let the controller work
> at its best which is almost always the default settings.
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
> "Paul Cahill" <nospam@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uGblSNbfFHA.3616@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>