Please start any new threads on our new
site at https://forums.sqlteam.com. We've got lots of great SQL Server
experts to answer whatever question you can come up with.
| Author |
Topic |
|
yakoo
Constraint Violating Yak Guru
312 Posts |
 Posted - 2002-08-05 : 12:02:18
|
| We currently have a SQL server that hosts 6 databases. The box has one processor and 4 gigs of RAM in it. We currently have a situation where we are running out of disk space and would like to rebuild the machine. Any suggestions?I was thinking of utilizing a large hard drive (80GB) for the MDF and LDF files, including the SQL Server 2000 installation. I was also thinking of utilizing a tape drive to run daily/weekly/monthly backup jobs.Any suggestions on how the server should be split up / configured.Thanks in advance.Got SQL? |
|
|
robvolk
Most Valuable Yak
15732 Posts |
Posted - 2002-08-05 : 12:13:16
|
| Get multiple drives, and if the box can handle enough for a RAID array, get one. You'll get much more bang for your buck if you have something like that vs. a single large drive with everything on it. |
 |
|
|
yakoo
Constraint Violating Yak Guru
312 Posts |
Posted - 2002-08-05 : 12:26:54
|
| I believe the machine has a RAID 5 controller in it that supports at least 4 drives. What size would you recommend for each of these RAID drives?Got SQL? |
|
|
|
robvolk
Most Valuable Yak
15732 Posts |
Posted - 2002-08-05 : 12:50:41
|
As big as you can afford.  Seriously though, get the largest drives that fit your budget, even if they are a lot larger than what you need right now.There is also something to be said for the performance of the drives. If you can get faster drives that have a little less capacity, but are still big enough, that's probably gonna be better. It's the same old (slightly modified) line: Big, fast, cheap. Pick two. I'd still lean towards more space though because you can get twice as much space for maybe 50% more money; whereas 50% more performance will cost you 3 times as much. |
|
|
|
setbasedisthetruepath
Used SQL Salesman
992 Posts |
Posted - 2002-08-06 : 09:06:47
|
quote:
I believe the machine has a RAID 5 controller in it that supports at least 4 drives. What size would you recommend for each of these RAID drives?
Are we talking IDE here? Most RAID controllers place no limit on the # of drives per se but rather an overall bandwidth limit. And most controllers support varied RAID configurations; RAID 5 is usually not the best choice for database servers.If you do have an IDE disk subsystem, stick with one large drive for the data volume and a separate drive for the log, making sure the log drive is on a different channel than the data drive.IDE is a terrible disk architecture for database systems though; you will be much better off with SCSI. Yes, I hear Rob already typing about the substantially higher cost of SCSI. You get what you pay for ...Jonathan Boott, MCDBA{0} |
|
|
|
robvolk
Most Valuable Yak
15732 Posts |
Posted - 2002-08-06 : 09:14:00
|
 IDE sucks IF you're using RAID; for a single drive or two-separate-drive system IDE is fine. There's zero benefit in having a single SCSI drive for a database server if you're never gonna add more drives. |
|
|
|
setbasedisthetruepath
Used SQL Salesman
992 Posts |
Posted - 2002-08-06 : 10:27:54
|
quote:
There's zero benefit in having a single SCSI drive for a database server if you're never gonna add more drives.
Hmmmm.Well, SCSI is simply a better disk infrastructure than IDE. IDE exists as a low-cost option and works well in the consumer (vs. business) market b/c CPU's have kept up with disk speeds, and handle fairly well the interrupt stream generated by IDE drives. IDE drives are, though, "dumb" devices. They do not have intelligent read-ahead caching, they do not have the ability to execute I/O's out-of-order, they are very limited in the # of devices able to co-exist on a single bus, the bandwidth available per channel is quite low, the quantity of interrupts they generate hampers scaleability, etc. etc. One SCSI disk of equal data density and spindle RPM will outperform an IDE disk of equivalent parameters without question, especially in a database environment where the amount of scattered I/O is relatively high.I will concede though that the benefit of just one drive being SCSI vs IDE is outweighed by the cost, particularly as the drive size increases .Jonathan Boott, MCDBA{0} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SQL Server Configuration