| Author |
Topic |
|
albertkohl
Aged Yak Warrior
740 Posts |
 Posted - 2008-12-24 : 11:30:41
|
Hey Peeps, it's me again with my infamous how can i get more speed w/ any work questions  So here's the question(s) of the day. i've recently purchased an 8Tb 8Disk NAS unit, should be here friday. my server currently has 1Tb of disk space which is about full from the 223million record (indexed) database we're sporting.currently, i only have one Primary FG, once i expand, it's my understanding that i can just add the new file locations (on the new NAS) as another set of files in the PFG correct? then any time i add more indexing, or data, i'll just roll over into the new volume.if that's correct, is there a better way i can do it for more performance? also, i heard that storing physical data and indexes on separate partitions will increase performance a smiggion... is that really true? if so, how can i go about doing so? maybe i can store data on PFG, and indexes on new volume.Thanks!!!!! |
|
|
sodeep
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
7174 Posts |
Posted - 2008-12-24 : 12:02:12
|
| You can create New FG and add files on it for new NAS. Also spreading indexes across different FG across separate disks improves speed. |
 |
|
|
albertkohl
Aged Yak Warrior
740 Posts |
Posted - 2008-12-24 : 13:05:32
|
| is there a way for me to specifiy that i want indexes on this FG, and physical data on that FG? i was planning on just striping the whole 8tb's into one huge volume (it's basically dedicated to this sql server) should i maybe plan on something else?or should like i said keep physical data on the local HDD, and indexes on the NAS? |
|
|
|
sodeep
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
7174 Posts |
Posted - 2008-12-24 : 13:09:11
|
| You can go to properties of indexes and specify FG if you have already created. Remember if you move Clustered index to other FG,You will move Table as well.You can fire Disk Counters in Performance monitor and see performance before you decide that for NAS. |
|
|
|
albertkohl
Aged Yak Warrior
740 Posts |
Posted - 2008-12-24 : 13:11:12
|
| k, thanks for the pointers, we're taking from today till the 5th off in observance for the holidays so i'm bringing the sql server home, and the NAS is being delivered to my door friday... the long time off shall prove useful for performance upgrades and diagnostics :PTHank you!!!! |
|
|
|
sodeep
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
7174 Posts |
Posted - 2008-12-24 : 13:12:18
|
You are Welcome. Merry Christmas  |
|
|
|
albertkohl
Aged Yak Warrior
740 Posts |
Posted - 2008-12-24 : 13:25:25
|
| same to you, i might message u if i get stuck, if u dont mind atleast. Thanks again! |
|
|
|
sodeep
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
7174 Posts |
Posted - 2008-12-24 : 13:34:06
|
| Please continue with this same post. |
|
|
|
MichaelP
Jedi Yak
2489 Posts |
Posted - 2008-12-29 : 16:22:37
|
| You are putting SQL Data on a NAS? I don't think that's reccomended unless you don't care about performance. Take a look at this KB article.http://support.microsoft.com/kb/304261<Yoda>Use the Search page you must. Find the answer you will. Cursors, path to the Dark Side they are. Avoid them, you must. Use Order By NewID() to get a random record you will.</Yoda>Opinions expressed in this post are not necessarily those of Microsoft Corp. All information is provided "AS IS" with no warranties and confers no rights. |
|
|
|
albertkohl
Aged Yak Warrior
740 Posts |
Posted - 2008-12-30 : 02:38:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelP
You are putting SQL Data on a NAS? I don't think that's reccomended unless you don't care about performance. Take a look at this KB article.
well, considering i've already maxed out the local disk interfaces, i really dont have much of a choice, i have to add storage via a NAS. the good thing i have going is that i'm using an iSCSI interface, which are to my understanding two gigabit nics that are bound/balanced. instead of running them to a switch, i'm running them DIRECTLY into the sql server. then i added a gig card for lan connection to the server. (so the server has 3 gig nics. Here's my next question though. if i have this bad-boy indexed well, should i have the indexes local, and the actual data on the san, or keep it how i have it with the san = indexes, and data = local.keep in mind, currently, i have 8TB on san, (7200 rpm (8)1tb drives on 0 raid) and i have 1TB local, (10000rpm (8) 150gb drives)what-cha-ppl think? |
|
|
|
|
Expanding Disk Space Questions