I read that under very heavy traffic, very heavy database useage situations, it is best to put your SQL Server 2005 log files on one Windows 2003 server and your data files on another. My question is ... does SQL Server 2005 need to be installed on both servers? Perhaps it could be installed on one but it would be best to have it installed on both?
That isn't true. What's true is splitting the files onto separate drives. So they would still be on the same server. Besides, what you described isn't possible anyway.
Thanks for responding. I want to make sure I understand you. Are you saying that it is impossible to successfully configure a SQL Server database so that the log files work on one server and the data files work on another. Perhaps I misunderstood what I have been reading. You suggest that the transaction speed is gained by putting them on seperate disks (disk arrays with RAID 10) on the same machine.
jhappy, yes it is impossible to configure the databases that way. We put the mdfs on one drive and the ldfs on a different drive. Kristen provides the RAID information in the other thread.
Data files and log files on seperate servers
Posted - 04/25/2006 : 13:44:06
