Brand new Windows Server / SQL Server 2008 R2 installation

SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.

Popular Topics

Home

Members

Calendar

Who's On

Home » SQL Server 2008 » SQL Server 2008 Administration » Brand new Windows Server / SQL Server 2008 R2...

Brand new Windows Server / SQL Server 2008 R2 installation

Rate Topic

Display Mode

Topic Options

Author

Message

erlis

Posted Tuesday, February 12, 2013 3:35 PM

Forum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 2:19 AM
Points: 2, Visits: 5

OS: Windows Server 2008 R2
SQL Server: SQL Server 2008 R2 Std.

I recently upgraded one of our servers to become a new SQL-server, with a quadcore 3.16GHz CPU,16 GB DDR2-RAM and 2x72GB (RAID1) SAS-disks for C:\ and 6x146GB (RAID1+0) SAS-disks for database/log storage on D:\. The old one (current one) is a dualcore 1.86GHz CPU, 3 GB DDR2-RAM and 4x72GB in RAID5 - so for my company this should be a decent upgrade.

First of all; is this a bad setup? Should database/logfiles be placed on different drives? Should I change the disk setup?

Second of all; if this planning is OKAY, should I install the SQL-software to C- or D-drive?

Other input is welcomed as well!

Post #1419223

anthony.green

Posted Wednesday, February 13, 2013 1:46 AM

SSCertifiable

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, April 12, 2013 3:51 AM
Points: 5,075, Visits: 4,831

Yes, your data files and log files, should be on completely different storage environments. So partitioning the D drive into D and E, but still using the same 2 disks isn't going to be better than just sticking them together on the D drive currently. They need their own seperate physical disks.

Also I would put an additional set of disks in for backups, so you data, logs and backups are on completly seperate independent storage.

You can install SQL to the C drive or D drive, it is entirly your preference, there isn;t much performance gain installing it on a drive thats not C.

Also remember to set your SQL Server's max memory, something around the 12-14GB mark if you have 16GB of RAM in the server.

Want an answer fast? Try here
How to post data/code for the best help - Jeff Moden
Need a string splitter, try this - Jeff Moden
How to post performance problems - Gail Shaw
CrossTabs-Part1 & Part2 - Jeff Moden
SQL Server Backup, Integrity Check, and Index and Statistics Maintenance - Ola Hallengren
Managing Transaction Logs - Gail Shaw
Troubleshooting SQL Server: A Guide for the Accidental DBA - Jonathan Kehayias and Ted Krueger

Post #1419341

erlis

Posted Wednesday, February 13, 2013 2:20 AM

Forum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 2:19 AM
Points: 2, Visits: 5

I just checked our current SQL-server and it seems our total database-size is approx. 10 GB + logs + backups.

Considering I have 2x72 GB and 6x146 GB at my disposal, would it be better to set up the server like this:

2x72 RAID 1 = OS & SQL Software
2x146 RAID 1 = SQL DATA
2x146 RAID 1 = SQL LOGS
2x146 RAID 1 = SQL BACKUP

How would 3xRAID1 impact performance against 1xRAID1+0 w/6 disks?

Post #1419352

anthony.green

Posted Wednesday, February 13, 2013 2:40 AM

SSCertifiable

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, April 12, 2013 3:51 AM
Points: 5,075, Visits: 4,831

Well you will have a smaller amount of IOPS available per RAID array, so you cant do as many read write operations a second as you could with 6 disks.

But with a DB that small I doubt you have the IOPS anyway to justify a RAID10 6 disk array.

But yes, I would setup the server with that configuration personally.

Post #1419357

« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Permissions