May 15, 2015 at 2:33 pm
We have multiple databases on a single instance in an OLTP environment. I have my data files on a separate SAN LUN from my transaction log files (and a few NDFs split out onto additional LUNs). I was wondering if there is a performance benefit to putting each LDF file on its own LUN? Or at least my few busiest LDFs? Has anyone done this?
We are currently on 2012, but I'm having to put together specs for a 2014 installation and need to answer this question without having an environment in which I can benchmark different setups. I know you can't tell me what is best for my system -- I just want to hear whether or not others have done this (why or why not?).
Thanks for your input,
--Mandy
May 15, 2015 at 2:46 pm
There could be, in that if the workload is high, you might get some better throughput to separate LUNs for each db. However I doubt it. Many times you aren't pushing enough workload in the log to have one interfere with the other, plus likely even separate they are both sending data through the same HBA/NIC, and to the same disks on the SAN side.
I would do this more if I was worried about space considerations and might need to manage the two drives separately.
May 16, 2015 at 5:08 am
Further on Steve's reply, probably the best gain would be in spreading the tempdb data files.
😎
May 16, 2015 at 11:25 am
Start my identifying which of the database files have the heaviest IO load and the highest delays on them. The answer to your question comes from the data. If a file has high read or write stalls, then it may be worth considering moving to a separate IO path, it may not be your log files though.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply