Re: New Server RAID setup
From: Andrew J. Kelly (sqlmvpnooospam_at_shadhawk.com)
Date: 07/09/04
- Previous message: Fred Morrison: "Quickest way to change Collation of Master DB?"
- In reply to: RAJ: "Re: New Server RAID setup"
- Next in thread: RAJ: "Re: New Server RAID setup"
- Reply: RAJ: "Re: New Server RAID setup"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 16:46:56 -0400
While you can certainly run IIS, ASP etc on the same server as SQL Server it
is never recommended if performance is a consideration not to mention
Security. I don't know how large your DB will be and how much memory IIS
and ASP will eventually use but I would say you will want more than 1GB.
And make sure you set your MAX Memory setting in SQL Server to a value that
will leave plenty of ram for the OS, IIS and ASP.
-- Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP "RAJ" <RAJ@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:0D0EDE25-7FF2-451B-91A1-AA2FDD470575@microsoft.com... > Great, I'll proceed w/ RAID 1+0 (10). The server currently has 1 gig of memory. It's going to be running .NET serving up Active Server Pages (ASP) inside IIS. Do you think 1 gig of memory is sufficient? > -- > RAJ > > > "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote: > > > The number of users does not mean much either, it's what they will be doing > > and how often they will be doing it. By RAID 1+0 I meant Raid 10 and no you > > don't want to create a Raid 0 and a Raid 1. If those are the only disks you > > have then I would keep it as a Raid 10 and your only choice will be to place > > every thing on drive array. Is this server going to host the application as > > well? If so make sure you have enough ram for both. > > > > -- > > Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP > > > > > > "RAJ" <RAJ@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > > news:2664451A-AC77-45B3-9EA3-0E980A7919F3@microsoft.com... > > > The server is going to be used as a .NET server, for document managment. > > The utilization, I believe is going to be low. There are going to be at > > most 150 users utilizing the server. As far as RAID 1+0, am I correct in > > saying the OS & SQL application be placed on a RAID 0 array & the log files > > be placed on a RAID 1? > > > -- > > > RAJ > > > > > > > > > "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote: > > > > > > > How you should configure the drives depends a lot on what your going to > > do > > > > with them. If you app is relatively small or only has a few > > transactions > > > > per second that approach sounds fine. The more trans / sec you get the > > more > > > > likely you will see disk issues unless you place the log file on it's > > own > > > > Raid 1. I would say start witht he Raid 1+0 and see how it goes. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP > > > > > > > > > > > > "RAJ" <RAJ@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > > > > news:281E5061-F153-4635-82D4-2EB720D27A4B@microsoft.com... > > > > > Hello, > > > > > I have a new IBM eServer w/ 5 identical HD's. I'm new to SQL and I'm > > > > researching the best HD configuration. I've come to the conclusion that > > > > using 4 of the HD's for a RAID 10 configuration and keeping the 5th > > drive as > > > > a hotswap backup drive. With that said I have two questions. > > > > > 1. Can I go wrong creating a RAID 10 & a hotswap drive? > > > > > 2. I there anything else I should consider regarding the config. of > > the > > > > HD's? > > > > > Any and all suggestions welcome! > > > > > Thank You! > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > RAJ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
- Previous message: Fred Morrison: "Quickest way to change Collation of Master DB?"
- In reply to: RAJ: "Re: New Server RAID setup"
- Next in thread: RAJ: "Re: New Server RAID setup"
- Reply: RAJ: "Re: New Server RAID setup"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|