Location of SQL logs and DB?

[dkraut]

What's the preferred location of OS, Log files and SQL DB on a Windows 2003 server? Would it be acceptable to locate the OS and log files on a RAID1 array and then locate the actual DB on a separate RAID5 array? This server will get relatively light use from ~50 users. Server is a new Dell 2850 with single 3GHz CPU and ~2GB of RAM

Thanks!

Dave

 

[mrdenny]

From what you have posted that config sounds good.

In order to keep things smooth I'd recommend a couple of things.
Either set the SQL Server to use 1-1.5 GB of RAM as the Max, or purchase another .5-1 Gig of RAM.
If you don't do one of these things your SQL Server will try to take all your memory, forcing the OS to start swapping large amounts of data to the swap file (which will also be on the RAID 1 array with the transaction logs). This will slow the machine down because it's swapping lots of data to the swap file, in attition to slowing down SQL server because the log files won't respond as fast because you are sharring the disk access time with the swap file. You'll end up in a nasty spiral.

I'd also like to see a second processor in there. (This will effect your licensing cost if you use per processor licensing). I'd like to see it in there more for redundancy than for speed in your config. It also gives you more room for the database and application to grow before you have to get another purchase approved. Better to spend a little more now, then to have to get more money approved later.

Also upscalling from a single chip to a dual chip OS is a pain. There are kernal changes that need to be made to get the second processor to work correctly.

If at all possible, I'd also recommend a second RAID 1 array for the transaction logs. You can never stop the OS from swapping some data to the swap file, and if you can put the logs on a seperate array you won't have to deal with the contention.

I would also recommend a hot spair (or two) in the server. That way if a drive blows the server can rebuild the redundancy of the array automatically, and the dead drive can then be replaced without having to worry quite so much about the array not being redundant.

Denny

--Anything is possible. All it takes is a little research. (Me)

http://www.mrdenny.com

(My very old site)