Re: Another Filegroup question
From: Andrew J. Kelly (sqlmvpnooospam_at_shadhawk.com)
Date: 01/24/05
- Next message: Mateo: "Re: xp_msver"
- Previous message: Don: "Re: Free and Used Allocated Space with Shrinkfile"
- In reply to: Mardy: "Another Filegroup question"
- Next in thread: Mardy: "Re: Another Filegroup question"
- Reply: Mardy: "Re: Another Filegroup question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 13:37:06 -0500
I agree with Michael. I would use 2 disks in a RAID 1 for the log files and
add those other two disks to the other Raid 1+0 and place all the files
there. Yes you can get increased performance by placing data and indexes on
separate arrays but probably not as much overall gain from adding more disks
to the Raid 1+0 and separating the logs.
-- Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP "Mardy" <Mardy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:2B260F96-324A-40A2-9EFE-88B66E85C349@microsoft.com... > I'm building a reporting server. I have a server with 2 processors, 2 > drive > arrays (2 raid 1+0 arrays - 4 disks total of 146 gb each) server with 2 gb > of > memory (negotiating for more). I have about 130 gb of data and a little > more > than half is indexes. One table makes up 50% of the data and indexes. > Also, I > plan to use transactional replication. > > I'm considering creating 2 file groups, one on each drive/array and > separating the indexes from the data. I'm assuming this will yield a > performance benefit and I'm wondering if I should also create 2 files in > each > filegroup to futher enhance performance but am not sure if this will > result > in further gains. > > Thanks > > MG
- Next message: Mateo: "Re: xp_msver"
- Previous message: Don: "Re: Free and Used Allocated Space with Shrinkfile"
- In reply to: Mardy: "Another Filegroup question"
- Next in thread: Mardy: "Re: Another Filegroup question"
- Reply: Mardy: "Re: Another Filegroup question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|