Z
zerbie45@gmail.com
Guest
hello,
I'm about to roll out a couple of windows 2003 sql server 2005 for a
financial platform (banking industry).
the servers use local hard disks to boot (drive c) but are attached to
a san for holding data (drive d).
now I noticed that the local sas disks are 15k rpm fast, while the
disk hosted on the san only is 5k fast.
I don't have that much know how with san solutions, but is it normal
that san disks are so slow (our san is from hitachi) ? would it be
better to use local disks for our sql server (the databases are used
very heavily) ?
does rpm makes a big difference in terms of sql server operations ?
thanks in advance for any help.
regards,
zz
I'm about to roll out a couple of windows 2003 sql server 2005 for a
financial platform (banking industry).
the servers use local hard disks to boot (drive c) but are attached to
a san for holding data (drive d).
now I noticed that the local sas disks are 15k rpm fast, while the
disk hosted on the san only is 5k fast.
I don't have that much know how with san solutions, but is it normal
that san disks are so slow (our san is from hitachi) ? would it be
better to use local disks for our sql server (the databases are used
very heavily) ?
does rpm makes a big difference in terms of sql server operations ?
thanks in advance for any help.
regards,
zz