Re: SQL 2005 hardware recommendations

What Geoff said:). Since they would all be on a single array and there is no performance benefit I would make the array one big partition so there is no chance you will run out of space in each individual partition.

--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors


"David" <David@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:B5FC17C7-8C24-4A32-8DAA-A06E4BF17C32@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Andrew,

Thanks for your help.

When you suggest a "RAID 1+0" configuration, I assume you mean 0 (striping)
first, 1 (mirroring) next. In other words, a mirrored pair of striped sets.

If I opted for purchasing six 36 GB drives, I could use four to make a "RAID
0+1" (as I would write it) 72 GB device. Then, what is the most advisable
way to partition this device? I'm asking with regard to two issues. First,
partitions and sizes particularly for the installation of Windows Server
2003. Second, partitions and sizes for the installation of SQL Server 2005
Express. Are three partitions sufficient or might I want four or more?

Thanks much for any further advice.

David
-------

"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OuYAATwIIHA.1208@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
With a database size that small and low usage I don't see any reason not to
use Express. But there are some features that Express does not support and
it has limits on Processors, Memory etc. Just be sure none of those
limitations are an issue with how you plan to use it. It does not sound like
it though. I don't think you will see a difference in having the additional
drives either. If the slots are there I would opt for 4 drives in a raid 1+0
configuration for the best in performance and redundancy.

--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors


"David" <David@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:37011776-AB29-4BE0-A194-75030C87CE8B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I must quickly purchase a small server for a client of mine to run SQL
Server 2005. I will be using the Access upscaling tool to migrate the
backend mdb file to SQL Server. I designed my Access application from the
beginning knowing that it will eventually be upscaled to SQL Server.
Thus,
there is both a backend mdb file with data only and a frontend mdb file
with
software, user-interface, etcetera.

The server will be exclusively for running SQL Server, except for very
light
file and print service. Furthermore, there are very few users: 4 or 5 at
most. I hope to use SQL Server 2005 Express Edition since it's free, the
data (after several years) is under 100 MBytes, and there are so few
users.
Is there any reason not to use the Express Edition?

Most important, what's an ideal hard drive configuration. I have the
opportunity to purchase an HP ProLiant ML350 with six 36GB drives. I'd
plan
to make 3 mirrored pairs resulting in three 36 GB volumes on separate
physical devices.

I also have the opportunity to purchase the same machine with three 72GB
drives. With this, I'd make one mirrored pair with a hot spare. Then,
the
multiple volumes would share the same physical device. Since there are so
few users, does it make a darn bit of difference?

In the last analysis, what is the ideal number of volumes (and sizes,
which
I know depends on the DB itself) for Windows Server 2003 and SQL Server
2005
Express (or perhaps Workgroup or Standard if Express is not sufficient).
Thanks for reading through all this. I am very appreciative of any
advice.

Regards,

David





.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SQL 2005 hardware recommendations
    ... With a database size that small and low usage I don't see any reason not to use Express. ... If the slots are there I would opt for 4 drives in a raid 1+0 configuration for the best in performance and redundancy. ... backend mdb file to SQL Server. ... beginning knowing that it will eventually be upscaled to SQL Server. ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.setup)
  • Re: SQL 2005 hardware recommendations
    ... That depends on how much I had to work with overall and what I needed for the others but I would make it no less than 20GB if I had to partition it seperately. ... I can't say as if I have seen a single SQL Server failure due to any corruption caused by the OS simply because it was on the same partition. ... The careful planning is usually related to segrating the database files onto seperate physical drives not partitions. ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.setup)
  • Re: SQL 2005 hardware recommendations
    ... I make sure that I install nothing on the boot partition other than ... creating an array out of all available physical drives so we can make, ... I'm still concerned about the need to have file systems on separate ... SQL Server, is of utmost importance. ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.setup)
  • Need more space on C: Drive
    ... We've got plenty of space on the F partition, maybe about 4 GB on the D ... put as much apps as I know possible on the D & F drives. ... SQL server is installed on the D drive but there still appears to be SQL ... Svr folders in the C:\Program Files folder (1 MS Sql Server & MS SQL Server ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: Sql Cluster server on win 2003 and sql 2005 ent.
    ... Clustering does not affect how drives should be partitioned. ... Microsoft SQL Server MVP ... partition the hard drive. ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)
Loading