Re: New install of SBS and where to put SQL and exchange
- From: Joe <Joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 16:42:02 -0800
Both raid arrays are physically different, one controler of course. They are
very fast though, each drive is an SAS 15K rpm.
One thing I wonder about. SBS is one busy machine, exchange and sql, are
both resoursre hogs. Why bother trying to split both on different drive sets
with one array having to also handle the OS as well. It seems by splitting
them both each is having to contend with the others resourses to run 1/2 of
itself???
I'm having a little diffucilty expressing my thoughts here. If you put half
of exchange on "A", 1/2 of SQL on "A", plus the OS on "A", then you put the
other half of Exchange and SQL on "B", is there really any gain in the split
vs letting Exchange and the OS be on one drive and SQL being on the other (in
this install SQL gets more work I think than exchange)??
"Al Williams" wrote:
Yes - you are going to get a lot of opinions here....
Partitions are good for organizing data and splitting things up to make data
recovery faster/easier and to prevent an issue with one partition from
affecting others. I always like to keep the OS entirely separate from the
data, and keeping databases like exchange and SQL separate has its benefits
too. One downside though is if you make your partitions too restrictive it
can cause one to overflow before the others (this isn't that big of deal
with non-boot partitions though as you can resize them fairly easily).
One thing to note though is partitions on the same physical drive do not
make things faster. Are your RAID1 and RAID5 arrays on completely separate
drives with a multi-channel RAID controller? If so then the best
performance for any database (exchange, sqlserver, etc.) is to put the log
files on the RAID1 and the databases on the RAID5 (or RAID10). Separating
these files onto different "spindles" allows the fastest SQL transactions as
the logs are commited first followed by the database. I usually create a
"LOG" partition for just this purpose on the RAID1 and a DATABASE partition
on the RAID5.
--
Allan Williams
"Joe" <Joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:D58CB689-CCE8-4757-9E33-975AA676C0A4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I almost hate to ask this question because Everyones opinon is valid and
the
ways are manafold BUT I want to try anyway.
With the advent of servers with Daul Quad processors, 4 gigs of ram two
cheap not to purchase, 15K rpm SAS drives reasonably priced we have a
WHOLE
log more performance than ever before.
I'm wondering if it isnt just simpler to put all of exchange in one
partition, all SQL in another, all user data in one, and the OS in
another?
For example on one server I am building I have a RAID 1 with 2 partions
and
a raid 5 with 2 partitions.
It would seem reasonable for an premium SBS install to put my OS and
Exchange on the Raid 1 (but seperate partitions), and put the SQL and
users
info on the other RAID 5 drive (seperate partitions). This customer uses
Soloman for his business. By puting exchange on one drive and SQL on the
other would that not prettly well split the performance hogs on seperate
physical drives and make backing up and restore and just keeping track of
where everything is easier?
Fire away!!!!!!
Joe
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: New install of SBS and where to put SQL and exchange
- From: Al Williams
- Re: New install of SBS and where to put SQL and exchange
- References:
- Re: New install of SBS and where to put SQL and exchange
- From: Al Williams
- Re: New install of SBS and where to put SQL and exchange
- Prev by Date: Blue Console
- Next by Date: Re: ISA 2004 config problem - subnets
- Previous by thread: Re: New install of SBS and where to put SQL and exchange
- Next by thread: Re: New install of SBS and where to put SQL and exchange
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
