|
|
Posted by Neil on 10/03/07 05:28
Thanks, Erland.
First, re. the 2 GB of RAM, considering that the db is not huge (two main
tables have about 60,000 records each; a few other tables with a few
thousand records; and then a bunch of smaller records); there are only about
50 users max; most of the activity is read-only, very little writing; and
the hardware is brand new; do you think that would be enough, or should I
push for more? I wouldn't count on the database being well-tuned.
Second, re. the size of the disks, when you said "make sure there is at
least 50 GB," wasn't sure if you meant 50 GB total, or 50 GB free space
after SQL Server is installed. Here are the specs for the disks:
C: RAID 0+1 36 GB (2 - 36 GB 10,000 RPM SAS)
D: RAID 5 204 GB (4 - 72 GB 10,000 RPM SAS)
Your input is appreciated. Thanks,
Neil
"Erland Sommarskog" <esquel@sommarskog.se> wrote in message
news:Xns99BDF0297F9BAYazorman@127.0.0.1...
> Neil (nospam@nospam.net) writes:
>> We are running SQL 7 on a server, and are moving to a new server and
>> will be upgrading to SQL 2005 at the same time. Currently, both the old
>> and the new servers have two drives, one for programs and one for data.
>>
>> With the current configuration, SQL 7 and the data are both installed on
>> the data drive, in the MSSQL7 directory. Our sys admin wants to install
>> SQL 2005 on the program drive of the new server, while putting our
>> databases on the data drive. I argue that if SQL itself is on the
>> program drive, then the system databases will be in one place, while our
>> databases will be in another. So I'd prefer to have SQL 2005 installed
>> on the data drive, as it is now.
>>
>> I'm interested in any feedback regarding what you guys think is the
>> better
>> configuration, and also if there's any performance hit from having the
>> program and the database on two drives of the same machine.
>
> First make sure that the sysadmin makes the system drive big enough. SQL
> 2005 takes quite a toll on the system disk, not the least the system disk.
> Make sure that there is at least 50 GB.
>
> Next, it's difficult to not install most of SQL 2005 on the system disk,
> so
> don't fiddle with that. It's not an issue anyway.
>
> What is more important is how you place your data files. You have two
> disks, and you have a data file, a log file, and then you have two files
> for
> tempdb. Put the data and log file for the database on separate drives
> for better odds in case of a crash. And put the log file for tempdb
> where the data file for the database and vice versa. Or get more
> disks to spread out over.
>
> As for the memory, 2GB is not that impressing, but depending on how big
> the active part of the database is, how well-tuned it is etc, it may
> be sufficient.
>
> --
> Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarskog.se
>
> Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx
> Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx
[Back to original message]
|