Re: new server
From: soc (zxc0_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 12/21/04
- Next message: soc: "Re: tempdb and pagefile"
- Previous message: Andrew J. Kelly: "Re: tempdb and pagefile"
- In reply to: Andrew J. Kelly: "Re: new server"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 15:10:44 -0000
Many Thanks Andrew
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:%23o50zr25EHA.828@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> The ideal solution for backups is to have a local drive array that you can
> send the backups to that is not used for the data or logs. If that is not
> possible then you can consider a network backup. If the file size is
> small enough and the network is decent this should not be too much of an
> issue. But I would seriously consider using a product such as SQL
> LiteSpeed to do the backups if sending to a networked share. This will
> dramatically reduce the time it takes to do the backup along with reducing
> the network traffic and final file size.
>
>
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
>
> "soc" <zxc0@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:%237IPIR05EHA.992@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks Andrew.
>> I would like to backup to disk before tape.
>>
>> Would the ideal situation be:
>> - to have another separate disk/array solely for this purpose (seems best
>> option)?
>> - backup to the data file raid5 array (data and backups could be lost?)?
>> - save to network (heavy network traffic)?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@shadhawk.com> wrote in message
>> news:ucuVtTt5EHA.3908@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>> The size of the db's means little when deciding if a system can handle
>>> the load. It is more a factor of how you use the data, how many
>>> transactions etc. Your configuration overall looks fine in most cases
>>> but again it is hard to tell for sure. If you have 8GB of ram and your
>>> db's will not grow significantly from what you mentioned you should be
>>> fine. It is important to separate the logs from the data as you show
>>> but if you use a Raid 5 it should have enough disks to handle the write
>>> load you may have. The size of the disks is not as important as the
>>> number. The more physical spindles the better within reason.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>>
>>>
>>> "soc" <zxc0@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:uEx44or5EHA.128@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>>>I would appreciate advice ordering a new dedicated sql server machine.
>>>> The largest database is 5GB customer db at present, with <6GB including
>>>> other business databases.
>>>> Rate of growth estimated at 50-100% per annum.
>>>> No of user connections is 45 av, 78 max recently recorded over 24hrs.
>>>>
>>>> Can you comment on the proposed set up below which is bearing in mind
>>>> anticipated business company growth? Where would the tempdb file be
>>>> placed in this set up?
>>>> What size of disks should be used in the raid arrays?
>>>>
>>>> -Quad processor with decent L2 cache
>>>> -4-8GB RAM
>>>> -raid 1 for os and sql server program files (2x10GB)
>>>> -raid 1 for transaction files
>>>> -raid 5 for data files
>>>> -altrium tape system
>>>>
>>>> Many Thanks S
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
- Next message: soc: "Re: tempdb and pagefile"
- Previous message: Andrew J. Kelly: "Re: tempdb and pagefile"
- In reply to: Andrew J. Kelly: "Re: new server"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
