Database is mostly read-intensive. Very few writes after initial records are
created, but much reading of those records.

Given this configuration, and given that buying additional disks is not an
option, what would you recommend? All on D, or program on C and created data
files on D?

Thanks!

Neil


"Ekrem Önsoy" <ekrem@btegitim.com> wrote in message
news:5F216DE4-E291-4F79-AFEB-9067EC0E9478@microsoft.com...
> What's the rate of writing and reading against your databases? Actually,
> this was the first question that should have been asked and answered.
> Because this is what is gonna shape your disk configuration.
>
> If it's read intensive, then RAID5 is OK (perf + redundancy). If it's
> write intensive then think about RAID10 (perf + redundancy) for your data
> and log files.
>
> If you have a chance to buy another physical disk, then you could locate
> your t-log files on a mirrored disk configuration (RAID1) which is gonna
> give you max write perf with redundancy. And store your data files on a
> 3disk RAID5 configuration. Of course this is an option if your system is
> write intensive.
>
> --
> Ekrem Önsoy
>
>
> "Neil" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:biwMi.30623$eY.13539@newssvr13.news.prodigy.n et...
>> The two drives we have are:
>>
>> C: RAID 0+1 36 GB (2 - 36 GB 10,000 RPM SAS)
>> D: RAID 5 204 GB (4 - 72 GB 10,000 RPM SAS)
>>
>>
>> "Ekrem Önsoy" <ekrem@btegitim.com> wrote in message
>> news:3AC16AFB-D66F-4C52-9F06-7C87FBEA6D42@microsoft.com...
>>> My suggestion:
>>> 1- Install OS in drive X (you could make this drive set RAID1 for
>>> redundancy)
>>> 2- Locate SQL Server data files in drive XX (Make this RAID10 if you are
>>> looking perf + redundancy)
>>> 3- Locate Log files of data files in drive XXX (if possible make this
>>> RAID1 if you are looking for perf + redundancy, if perf is the only
>>> important thing then go for RAID0)
>>>
>>> This way gives you the best perf. If temp db is being used in your
>>> environment, then you may be thinking to locate it on its dedicated
>>> drive as well.
>>>
>>> P.S.
>>> You may not care about the suggestions in parenthesis.
>>>
>>> If you do not have enough disks, then you could locate your OS files on
>>> drive X, data and log files on drive XX.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ekrem Önsoy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Neil" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
>>> newsQhMi.654$VX3.602@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Neil
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>