Raid Implementation

[jonwolds]

Hi,

We have a new Small Business Server which will host SQL Server 2005. The SQL Server instance will be used for an ETL solution and will hold 2 databases that have heavy read/write processing and 1 that has minimal read/write processing. Databases are about 4 gig in total.

The server comes with 6 scsi 72 gig disks and I am deciding how to set them up. Assuming no redundancy is required I am proposing the following setup:

OS and applications: 2 disks Raid 1

SQL Server .mdf files: 3 disks Raid 0

SQL Server .ldf files: 1 disk

Questions I have are:

1. Does this seem a sensible setup (remember no redundancy required for sql server)?

2. Should the indexes and sysdatabases be placed on the 3 disk raid 0 group?

Thanks

Jon

 

[mrdenny]

Yes you can put the system databases and indexes on the raid 0 array.

With only 4 Gigs of data, I'd recommend getting 6 gigs of RAM which will allow SQL to basically load everything into memory only going to the disk for writes as needed.

Denny
MCSA (2003) / MCDBA (SQL 2000) / MCTS (SQL 2005) / MCITP Database Administrator (SQL 2005)

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

http://www.mrdenny.com

 

[timscronin]

mdf on Raid 0, nooooooooooooooooooooo!, at least RAID 5 or RAID 10

 

[mrdenny]

Tim,

... Assuming no redundancy is required ...

With no redundancy requirments RAID 0 will be the fastest option. With redundancy RAID 0+1 for sure.

Denny
MCSA (2003) / MCDBA (SQL 2000) / MCTS (SQL 2005) / MCITP Database Administrator (SQL 2005)

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

http://www.mrdenny.com

 

[timscronin]

Sorry missed the no redundancy, I would make sure someone had that it writing, management tends to forget