SQL Server DB installation

[Hank Rouse]

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

[John Bell]

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" <ha*********@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BA*******************@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

[Dan Guzman]

> 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" <jb************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43**********************@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" <ha*********@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BA*******************@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

[John Bell]

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" <jb************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43**********************@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" <ha*********@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BA*******************@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