Home Forums SQL Server 2005 Administering 10 physical disks available - best configuration for data/log/backup? RE: 10 physical disks available - best configuration for data/log/backup?

  • To answer that question, my experience has been that the more spindles you can involve, the better the performance. A lot of SAN folks will argue against that but I'm not sure why because it actually does make a lot of sense.

    To wit, I normally try to separate MDF and LDF files to their own physical sets of spindles as well as setting up TempDB on it's own set of spindles. If I can, I'll set it up so that the MDF/NDF files of TempDB are on separate spindles from the LDF files but, no matter what, I try to put TempDB on it's own drive(s) so I can configure it differently than all of the others.

    Of course and as a sidebar, that's not always possible with the ridiculously sized hard disks they have now. It was so much easier to right-size and get more spindles involved when disk size was much smaller. For example, I just can't see dedicating a 300GB drive to the LDF files of a system that won't grow to more than 600GB across multiple databases. It was a little tougher on electricity and cooling but it even allowed for faster disk replacement if one went bad because the system didn't have to rebuild so much.

    --Jeff Moden


    RBAR is pronounced "ree-bar" and is a "Modenism" for Row-By-Agonizing-Row.
    First step towards the paradigm shift of writing Set Based code:
    ________Stop thinking about what you want to do to a ROW... think, instead, of what you want to do to a COLUMN.

    Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.


    Helpful Links:
    How to post code problems
    How to Post Performance Problems
    Create a Tally Function (fnTally)