Re: Single-disk database and I/O load balancing?

From: Burt Peltier <burttemp1ReMoVeThIs_at_bellsouth.net>
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 11:25:34 -0500
Message-ID: <i9Whb.1386$JE4.505@bignews4.bellsouth.net>

Looks like 4 disks are recommended from M$ and the performance comments sound almost exactly like Oracle.

But, everyone believes sqlserver is soooo easy to administer, why would anyone read this ... just hit next, next, next, finish - right?

From this URL (scroll down to "Configuration of SQL Server 2000"): http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/itsolutions/idc/rag/ragc06.asp

....
For performance reasons, the following SQL Server files should be split into different storage sets:

  a.. Transaction log files
  b.. Tempdb files
  c.. Data files
  d.. Index files

It is strongly recommended that the transaction log files and tempdb files be put on RAID 0/1 but not on RAID 5, because of the performance penalty caused by high write I/O rates. Similarly, the data files and index files should also be stored on RAID 0/1 storage sets, but in the case of an application that is not write-intensive can be placed on RAID 5.

-- 
"Noons" <wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam> wrote in message
news:3f880544$0$28120$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au...


> "Geomancer" <pharfromhome_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:cf90fb89.0310100527.202279d8_at_posting.google.com...


>

> > But what about smaller systems on a single, large disk?

>

> Here is something I find hard to understand.  M$ recommends

> AT LEAST 3disks as an absolute minimum for their SQL Server

> setup.  And here we have sites making a case for 1 disk for

> Oracle.  Why?  At least 3 disks.  Period.

>

>

> > With the new 72 and 144 gig drives, it is hard to get my clients to

> > buy extra disks when the existing disk is large enough to hold their

> > entire database.  These systems are always constrained by disk I/O.

>

> Just tell them that M$ will not recommend anything less

> then 3, why are they asking you to do 1?

>

> > So, is the idea of disk load-balancing truly a fraud for non-RAIDED

> > disks?

>

> Not at all.  But there are some common misconceptions that should

> be addressed.  Such as: why not have the implicitly cached dictionary

> tablespace live in the same logical spindle as the OS and software?

> It's not like it's gonna get a lot of I/O after the objects

> have been used for a while.  So, put it where it won't hurt if something

> else uses up I/O capacity.  And so on.

>

>

> -- 

> Cheers

> Nuno Souto

> wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam

>

>

Received on Sat Oct 11 2003 - 11:25:34 CDT