Sounds like a much better idea. If you pursue that, I'd put the log
files on the RAID 1/Boot partition and the databases on the RAID 10.
Ideal, though, would be to add two more drives and have 3 RAID arrays:

RAID 1 - OS & applications
RAID 1 - log files
RAID 10 - databases

Also, to maximize throughput, it would be highly recommended that each
RAID array be connected to a separate channel. This will require adding
another RAID adapter with 2 internal channels.

Regards,
Hank Arnold

JTL wrote:
> what if i were able to add 2 more 80 GB drives? would it then be advisable
> to install the OS and configure RAID 1 on these drives and keep RAID10 for
> the remaining 4 x 400GB drives?
>
> tia-
>
> JT
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:OH59e$V4GHA.4196@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> I agree with Hank in that having logical drive or partitions on the same
>> physical drive doesn't buy you anything in terms of performance. And you
>> now run the risk of running out of space on a given partition. If you keep
>> the same drive config you would be better off to have one large partition
>> and not worry about how large the files will get.
>>
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Hank Arnold" <rasilon@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:eqkaHJU4GHA.2464@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> First off, you've picked, IMNSHO, the worst of the options available to
>>> you. The PERC 5i adapter has only one internal RAID channel. This means
>>> that all data will be funneled through the one path, degrading
>>> performance. By putting all the drives in the same RAID array and
>>> *partitioning* it, you've added drive access delays to your performance
>>> hit.
>>>
>>> If adding drives and separate RAID channels isn't a possibility, then I'd
>>> almost rather see two RAID arrays:
>>>
>>> RAID 1 (two drives) - OS, program files and log files
>>> RAID 1 (two drives) - Databases
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Hank Arnold
>>>
>>> JTL wrote:
>>>> Thanks for the -
>>>>
>>>> I have an Integrated PERC 5/i RAID adapter on this machine. I setup my 4
>>>> drives in a RAID 10 configuration with 3 virtual drives. The C drive
>>>> (boot partition is 30GB), then I have a 200GB partition, and a 500GB
>>>> partition. Im using the 30GB partiotion for the OS, the 200GB partition
>>>> for the sql log files, and the 500GB partition for the sql data files.
>>>> Are you saying that I should place the sql log files on the same
>>>> partition as the OS? I'm afraid that if I do this, I will run out of
>>>> disk space on that partition b/c it's only 30GB.
>>>>
>>>> Any suggestions?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks much!
>>>>
>>>> JTL
>>>>
>>>> "Hank Arnold" <rasilon@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:OdlpZXI4GHA.5092@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>> First off, you make no mention of a RAID adapter. If you don't have
>>>>> one, don't bother with RAID. Software RAID is, at best, a bad idea.....
>>>>>
>>>>> Next, if you do have (or get one), you do realize that all the data on
>>>>> any drives being put in a RAID array will have their data completely
>>>>> wiped out? Better have good backups before you try anything....
>>>>>
>>>>> With 4 drives, total, you don't have many options. RAID 1 requires a
>>>>> minimum of 2 drives, RAID 5 requires 3 and RAID 10 requires 4. Either
>>>>> everything on a RAID 10 or two RAID 1 arrays. OS, Log and programs
>>>>> files on the boot drive and databases on the second.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ideally, you should have at least 3 RAID arrays. RAID 1 for the OS and
>>>>> program files, RAID 1 for the log files and RAID 10 for the databases.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you choose multiple RAID arrays, it's important that they are on
>>>>> separate channels. If they share a channel, you lose a lot of the gains
>>>>> in performance by pushing everything through a single channel.....
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, It's not a good idea to have Exchange and SQL on the same server.
>>>>> Each wants everything for itself. At the very least it is going to
>>>>> require a lot of careful tuning to get it to work efficiently....
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Hank Arnold
>>>>>
>>>>> JTL wrote:
>>>>>> i posted a related question a few days ago and have since upgraded my
>>>>>> hardware- im hoping to set up my server with the optimal RAID
>>>>>> configuration for our limited means- we have a shiny-new dell
>>>>>> poweredge 2950 server with four, 400GB SATA drives. it is running
>>>>>> windows server 2003 R2 Enterprise x64 and SQL Server 2005 Enterprise
>>>>>> x64.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> this server will be hosting a sql server database that has an 80GB
>>>>>> data file which will slowly grow over time. data redundancy is
>>>>>> important since this machine will be our main data server, however we
>>>>>> do have means to rebuild our database if we were to lose it- our data
>>>>>> is updated just once a day via a data import task. i would say that
>>>>>> processing power is equally as important to us as data redundancy, if
>>>>>> not more important.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i am leaning toward a RAID 10 configuration, but being quite the
>>>>>> newbie at this, i'd love to hear your recommendations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> is it possible to use a combination of RAID levels? for example, i
>>>>>> was playing with idea of configuring RAID 1 for two of the drives,
>>>>>> which would store the OS and SQL log files. then configure RAID 0 for
>>>>>> the remaining 2 drives, which would store the SQL data files. but
>>>>>> would i need more hardware (like a RAID connector/controller??) to do
>>>>>> this? and would this be better than just throwing all disks into a
>>>>>> RAID10 array?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> anyways- any and all is much appreciated-
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> JTL
>
>