Posted by Dan Guzman on 02/05/06 16:29

> With what you have I would stick data/log files onto the disc 3/4 pair,
> then look for more budget.

With the current config, Hank could place logs on the OS mirrored drives.
Isolating data/log files would be best for both performance and
recoverability. I wouldn't expect the OS drives to get hit much on a
dedicated SQL box so I don't see the point on avoiding the OS mirror.

--
Hope this helps.

Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP

"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43e60123$0$5003$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> Hi
>
> You don't really have enough to play with to make a system that I would go
> for. Separating data files from log files and the OS would require another
> set of Raid 1 discs. To make your system more resilient the data files
> would require another disc on top of that to give Raid 5 although Raid 10
> would be preferable.
>
> You may want to read:
> http://www.sql-server-performance.com/rc_hardware_planning.asp
>
> With what you have I would stick data/log files onto the disc 3/4 pair,
> then look for more budget.
>
> John
>
> "Hank Rouse" <hank_top_sf@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:BA9Ff.41737$dW3.17682@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>> Question, I have a dedicated SQL Server box, just the OS and SQL Server,
>> and
>> was curious as to where best to setup DB.
>>
>> Drive Size What
>> Drive1 73GB OS & SQL Server Software
>> Drive2 73GB mirror of Drive 2
>> Drive3 300GB Actual DBs
>> Drive4 300GB mirror of Drive 3
>>
>> In doing so, my reasoning would be to leave the OS alone. Will be
>> running
>> either Windows 2003 server, or 2000 Advanced Server, not sure yet.
>>
>> Presently have about 4M records archived in different Access DBs, and I
>> know
>> size will grow to about 33M within 1 year.
>>
>> TIA,
>> Hank
>>
>>
>
>

[Back to original message]