Re: SQL Server 2000, Raid 1 or Raid 5 for Applications
- From: "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 19:49:12 -0500
The number of apps is not really a factor unless you need a different SQL
Server instance for each app but I highly doubt that. What is best depends
a lot on the available hardware, your budget and how you use the data. An
ideal solution disregarding cost for SQL Server 2005 would be this:
OS - RAID 1
SQL Transactions Logs - Raid 1 or RAID 10 with ONLY log files on it
SQL User Data Files - RAID 10
TEMPDB Data Files - RAID 1 or 10
If you are only doing a relatively small number of transactions per second
you can get away with less but we would have to know more about the usage to
give any more details.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Magoo" <magoo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:98477A15-B73B-4BB2-BB32-B64F3089D608@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I'm a novice with SQL, please assist me.
I'm looking for "best practices" setup for SQL applications.
Should I configure mirror drives for the OS, and a unique physical mirror
for each application and instance of SQL?
So, if i have 4 SQL apps, I would need 10 drives, since there would be an
OS
mirror and 4 SQL apps mirrors?
Or is a mirror for the OS and a RAID 5 OK for the Apps with 4 partitions
defined for each app?
Thanks for your advice.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Poor performance after upgrading to sql server 2005
- Next by Date: Re: SQL Server 2000, Raid 1 or Raid 5 for Applications
- Previous by thread: Re: Poor performance after upgrading to sql server 2005
- Next by thread: Re: SQL Server 2000, Raid 1 or Raid 5 for Applications
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
