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 |
|
DBADave
Constraint Violating Yak Guru
366 Posts |
 Posted - 2007-05-17 : 15:14:19
|
| For single instance installations I try to follow a standard configuration where our log files go to E, data files to F, tempdb to H and backups to G. With a new project we have decided to combine our Test and Dev environments on one server with Test being a default instance of SQL Server and Dev being a named instance. My plan was to stick with the above convention, but I was asked if it would be better for each instance to have dedicated data, log and tempdb drives. The problem is we would not have a dedicated controller for each drive. We would have one controller for the default and named instance data drives, one for the log drives and one for tempdb. The other issue is having to modify some of my admin scripts/procedures to work with different drive letters. That's now a real big deal, but does add more work to my plate.Do you think it's worth having separate drives for a Test/QA server or is it typically sufficeint to use shared?Thanks, Dave |
|
|
rmiao
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
7266 Posts |
Posted - 2007-05-17 : 16:15:47
|
| You can create a subdirectory in those drives to hold files from named instance. |
 |
|
|
tkizer
Almighty SQL Goddess
38200 Posts |
Posted - 2007-05-17 : 16:18:04
|
| Do you care about performance in dev/test? Splitting to separate drives is typically only done in production and performance environments.Tara Kizerhttp://weblogs.sqlteam.com/tarad/ |
|
|
|
DBADave
Constraint Violating Yak Guru
366 Posts |
Posted - 2007-05-17 : 16:33:50
|
| We only care about performance on the Test instance and only when running some stress tests. We already agreed with the developers that in the event a stress test needs to be run on the test instance nobody can access the development instance while the test is running. Since that's the case I think we are ok from a performance point of view. Would you agree?Dave |
|
|
|
rmiao
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
7266 Posts |
Posted - 2007-05-17 : 16:39:33
|
| That sounds ok. |
|
|
|
tkizer
Almighty SQL Goddess
38200 Posts |
Posted - 2007-05-17 : 16:42:19
|
| Since you are using 2005, are you able to use mount points? Our environments look like this with mount points:DriveLetter:\ <-- this is where we install sql serverDriveLetter:\BackupDriveLetter:\DataDriveLetter:\LogAll 4 are mount points.Tara Kizerhttp://weblogs.sqlteam.com/tarad/ |
|
|
|
DBADave
Constraint Violating Yak Guru
366 Posts |
Posted - 2007-05-17 : 16:50:43
|
| I'm not sure I understand what you mean by mount points and SQL 2005. Our drives for SQL 2000 and 2005 servers are configured as follows.C:\ - Labled as OSE:\ - Labled as LogsF:\ - Labled as DataG:\ - Labled as BackupsH:\ - Labled as TempdbAre you refering to the labels assigned to a drive at the O/S level or something else? |
|
|
|
tkizer
Almighty SQL Goddess
38200 Posts |
Posted - 2007-05-17 : 16:54:56
|
| Mount points are not labels. They are not a new technology but we finally get to use them in 2005.Tara Kizerhttp://weblogs.sqlteam.com/tarad/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated data & log drives for each SQL instance?