My company is on the verge of deploying a new SQL Server. Unfortunately, I was not consulted. Not that I'm some SQL Server expert, but I am knowledgeable enough to know that we really need a bare min. of 4 physical drives to be fault tolerant and "best practice" compliant.
It's really not going to be pushed very hard, it will live in a data center and will essentially host relational reporting data for about 6 separate customers (and DB's) connecting with web based ASP.net reporting applications. Each customer would probably only ever have at most two or three simultaneous connections. The DB's are pretty small... say 1GB each.
We bought a pretty decent rack mounted Dell something or other with a modern run-of-the-mill quad core processor and I think 16GB of RAM. BUT only two 1TB SATA drives. In my mind this means we must choose between RAIDing the two drives into 1 fault tolerant drive and ignoring the fundamental "best practices" that insist data/log/tempdb live on separate physical drives.
I need to express my concern, but if I can't convince the powers that be that we need two more drives, what direction should a two drive solution go? 1 RAID drive with EVERYTHING on it, or two non-raid drives with data/logs/tempdb physically separated?