August 6, 2009 at 6:27 am
I am designing a database solution for an application that relies on fulltext seaching. I plan on placing the data, logs, apps, os all on separate volumes, but I am running out of drives. Does anyone see major problems placing the tempdb and fulltext catalogs on the same volume. It will probably be a RAID 1 array.
Thanks
August 7, 2009 at 5:39 am
I'm tempted to say: "it depends"; however I am going to say that it is pretty much essential to have tempdb on its own data path and with dedicated drives - as fast as you can afford. For large systems, a RAM-drive or solid-state solution is fast becoming the preferred option.
SQL Server 2005 and later rely heavily on tempdb, and although how large it needs to be does depend on your workload (and whether you decide to use a row-versioning isolation level, for example), it always needs to be fast. Really fast.
In many instances, a fast tempdb is just as important as separating data and log.
Sharing with full-text catalogs would be a particularly poor choice since they attract lots of random I/O and sudden busts of activity (for example when a merge occurs).
Paul
edited to add: If you can't put the FT catalogs on a separate drive consider sharing with database data files as the lesser of many evils.
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply