Re: sql server 2000 install
From: Jacco Schalkwijk (jacco.please.reply_at_to.newsgroups.mvps.org.invalid)
Date: 12/07/04
- Next message: Mike Epprecht \(SQL MVP\): "Re: Cancerous Growth with Replication"
- Previous message: Andrew J. Kelly: "Re: RAID Configuration"
- In reply to: Pierre: "sql server 2000 install"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 22:57:25 -0000
disk raid 1
> partition 0 : system
> partition 1 : transaction log
disk raid 5 :
> partition 0 : data
Has my preference. If you have a dedicated SQL Server the system disk
doesn't get used much, so it makes sense to use both disks. It is usually
better to have data and log files on different physical disks, as the data
is basically random access, while the log file is sequential.
-- Jacco Schalkwijk SQL Server MVP "Pierre" <pierroozz@freesurf.fr> wrote in message news:%23Ne4x4G3EHA.1076@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... > Hello, > > I would like to know if there is a guide to install SQL server in a good > way. I'm looking for a best practice guideline to install SQL Server, but > do not find anything relevant that can answer to my questions : > Is it pertinent to install the log and the data on different partitions ? > Or should they be on different physical disks ? > With two disks, one in raid1 and the second in raid5, what is the best way > to install SQL server 2000 ? > > disk raid 1 >> partition 0 : system >> partition 1 : transaction log > > disk raid 5 : >> partition 0 : data > > OR > > disk raid 1 >> partition 0 : system > > disk raid 5 : >> partition 0 : data >> partition 1 : transaction log > > What is the better configuration ? > Or is there a better one on 2 physical disks ? > > Thanks. > > Best regards. > > Pierre. > >
- Next message: Mike Epprecht \(SQL MVP\): "Re: Cancerous Growth with Replication"
- Previous message: Andrew J. Kelly: "Re: RAID Configuration"
- In reply to: Pierre: "sql server 2000 install"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
