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 |
|
amsqlguy
Yak Posting Veteran
89 Posts |
 Posted - 2009-07-10 : 11:20:42
|
| Currently we have 9 databases on single instance wiht each database of 30gb SIZE, the box and sql instance are 64 bit. Across these databases I am planning to pick all the large tables have the clustered indexes and non clustered indexes from these tables to write to different file group containing one file each to separate SAN drive. So I am planning to have 2 data drives one for data, one for indexes of these large table and one for log drive.The concern I have here will there be any contention if all the indexes of these large tables for 9 databases read from the same drive. Also is the approach of having the indexes in separate file group a good one. Any suggestions and inputs wouid help.Thanks |
|
|
dinakar
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
2507 Posts |
Posted - 2009-07-10 : 18:27:17
|
| Instead of putting all large tables in one file group, I would recommend identifying the usage patterns of the large tables and divide them evenly over both the filegroups.Dinakar Nethi************************Life is short. Enjoy it.************************http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/dinakar/ |
 |
|
|
Michael Valentine Jones
Yak DBA Kernel (pronounced Colonel)
7020 Posts |
Posted - 2009-07-11 : 00:19:15
|
| If you are using SAN a lot depends on how the data is actually stored on the SAN unit.It is often the case that the SAN storage is all allocated from the same group of drives, so that all your LUNs are actually on the same physical drives anyway. If that is the case, spreading then across multiple LUNs will probably neither help not hurt.CODO ERGO SUM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clustered, non clustered indexes on file groups