vBulletin Search Engine Optimization
| |||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| ||||
| Question, I have a dedicated SQL Server box, just the OS and SQL Server, and was curious as to where best to setup DB. Drive Size What Drive1 73GB OS & SQL Server Software Drive2 73GB mirror of Drive 2 Drive3 300GB Actual DBs Drive4 300GB mirror of Drive 3 In doing so, my reasoning would be to leave the OS alone. Will be running either Windows 2003 server, or 2000 Advanced Server, not sure yet. Presently have about 4M records archived in different Access DBs, and I know size will grow to about 33M within 1 year. TIA, Hank |
| |||
| Hi You don't really have enough to play with to make a system that I would go for. Separating data files from log files and the OS would require another set of Raid 1 discs. To make your system more resilient the data files would require another disc on top of that to give Raid 5 although Raid 10 would be preferable. You may want to read: http://www.sql-server-performance.co...e_planning.asp With what you have I would stick data/log files onto the disc 3/4 pair, then look for more budget. John "Hank Rouse" <hank_top_sf@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:BA9Ff.41737$dW3.17682@newssvr21.news.prodigy. com... > Question, I have a dedicated SQL Server box, just the OS and SQL Server, > and > was curious as to where best to setup DB. > > Drive Size What > Drive1 73GB OS & SQL Server Software > Drive2 73GB mirror of Drive 2 > Drive3 300GB Actual DBs > Drive4 300GB mirror of Drive 3 > > In doing so, my reasoning would be to leave the OS alone. Will be running > either Windows 2003 server, or 2000 Advanced Server, not sure yet. > > Presently have about 4M records archived in different Access DBs, and I > know > size will grow to about 33M within 1 year. > > TIA, > Hank > > |
| |||
| > With what you have I would stick data/log files onto the disc 3/4 pair, > then look for more budget. With the current config, Hank could place logs on the OS mirrored drives. Isolating data/log files would be best for both performance and recoverability. I wouldn't expect the OS drives to get hit much on a dedicated SQL box so I don't see the point on avoiding the OS mirror. -- Hope this helps. Dan Guzman SQL Server MVP "John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:43e60123$0$5003$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk... > Hi > > You don't really have enough to play with to make a system that I would go > for. Separating data files from log files and the OS would require another > set of Raid 1 discs. To make your system more resilient the data files > would require another disc on top of that to give Raid 5 although Raid 10 > would be preferable. > > You may want to read: > http://www.sql-server-performance.co...e_planning.asp > > With what you have I would stick data/log files onto the disc 3/4 pair, > then look for more budget. > > John > > "Hank Rouse" <hank_top_sf@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:BA9Ff.41737$dW3.17682@newssvr21.news.prodigy. com... >> Question, I have a dedicated SQL Server box, just the OS and SQL Server, >> and >> was curious as to where best to setup DB. >> >> Drive Size What >> Drive1 73GB OS & SQL Server Software >> Drive2 73GB mirror of Drive 2 >> Drive3 300GB Actual DBs >> Drive4 300GB mirror of Drive 3 >> >> In doing so, my reasoning would be to leave the OS alone. Will be >> running >> either Windows 2003 server, or 2000 Advanced Server, not sure yet. >> >> Presently have about 4M records archived in different Access DBs, and I >> know >> size will grow to about 33M within 1 year. >> >> TIA, >> Hank >> >> > > |
| ||||
| Hi Dan Whatever solution is adopted it is a compromise and not ideal, with the logs on the OS drive a lack of memory would be significant, but we don't have that information! Ideally the page file would also be on it's own disc, although on a dedicated server you would not expect it to have much use! Whatever solution the Hank adopts he can always move them afterwards http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2240...22120121120120 John Dan Guzman wrote: > > With what you have I would stick data/log files onto the disc 3/4 pair, > > then look for more budget. > > With the current config, Hank could place logs on the OS mirrored drives. > Isolating data/log files would be best for both performance and > recoverability. I wouldn't expect the OS drives to get hit much on a > dedicated SQL box so I don't see the point on avoiding the OS mirror. > > -- > Hope this helps. > > Dan Guzman > SQL Server MVP > > "John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:43e60123$0$5003$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk... > > Hi > > > > You don't really have enough to play with to make a system that I would go > > for. Separating data files from log files and the OS would require another > > set of Raid 1 discs. To make your system more resilient the data files > > would require another disc on top of that to give Raid 5 although Raid 10 > > would be preferable. > > > > You may want to read: > > http://www.sql-server-performance.co...e_planning.asp > > > > With what you have I would stick data/log files onto the disc 3/4 pair, > > then look for more budget. > > > > John > > > > "Hank Rouse" <hank_top_sf@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:BA9Ff.41737$dW3.17682@newssvr21.news.prodigy. com... > >> Question, I have a dedicated SQL Server box, just the OS and SQL Server, > >> and > >> was curious as to where best to setup DB. > >> > >> Drive Size What > >> Drive1 73GB OS & SQL Server Software > >> Drive2 73GB mirror of Drive 2 > >> Drive3 300GB Actual DBs > >> Drive4 300GB mirror of Drive 3 > >> > >> In doing so, my reasoning would be to leave the OS alone. Will be > >> running > >> either Windows 2003 server, or 2000 Advanced Server, not sure yet. > >> > >> Presently have about 4M records archived in different Access DBs, and I > >> know > >> size will grow to about 33M within 1 year. > >> > >> TIA, > >> Hank > >> > >> > > > > |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|