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 |
|
AskSQLTeam
Ask SQLTeam Question
0 Posts |
 Posted - 2005-12-19 : 09:13:44
|
| Henry writes "I am installing SQL Server 2000 on a high performance dell server which will power two front end SharePoint servers.Performance is extremely important. I have two raid drives set up raid 1 for the operating system and the raid 5 for SQL Server 2000The operating system Windws 2003 server will be going on the mirror drive(raid 1). SQL Server 2000 will go on a Raid 5 drive. Should the installation be with SQL Server installed completely on the raid 5 drive and is there any benefit in making a partition on the raid five drive to put the log files and a partition with the mdf files.I think not because it would be more work for the raid 5 systemwhat do you folks think??How would you install the SQL Server 2000 and are there any documentation for this installation.ThanksHenry Moreno" |
|
|
SQLServerDBA_Dan
Aged Yak Warrior
752 Posts |
Posted - 2005-12-19 : 09:46:56
|
Dont forget a large SATA disk for backups. I like to run my backups to disk and then let the net admin pick them up whenever he feels is best. I wouldn't backup to the array where my o/s or db's were because the backups are very write intensive and having the I/O on a separate array makes me feel better.  I'd suggest a much grander solution but it seems that your shop is small and this is what I'd suggest for a small, budget restricted company.I'm not really sure about the partitioning. I'd think there would be no difference. It's still all the same drives which will have all the same I/O and same bottlenecks. If anything partitioning it may cause you problems down the road if you want to restore the DB's to a new server because you may have to specify the "move" option each time you restore. This is because your new server may not have the same drive letters and you wont be able to use the same restore paths from the backup file, but as long as you setup the server the same way you wont get that problem. |
 |
|
|
eyechart
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
3575 Posts |
Posted - 2005-12-19 : 10:08:35
|
| If performance is important, I would not use RAID5. I would use RAID 10 with as many spindles as possible.You might want to search through our forum archives as this topic has come up many times. -ec |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Installation of SQL Server