Recommendations for where to keep the data and logs  
Author Message
Appache





PostPosted: Fri Jul 09 10:24:09 CDT 2004 Top

SQL Server >> Recommendations for where to keep the data and logs

We are setting up a server with 3 redundant (RAID 1)drives:
C: system (30GB)
D: .Net web application (170GB)
E: (170GB)

I want to make certain that the SQL data and logs are on separate physical
drives.

Should I put the data on the same drive that holds the .NET application OR
should the logs go on the same drive as the .NET application?

Thank you in advance,
Timothy Ross

SQL Server168  
 
 
Hari





PostPosted: Fri Jul 09 10:24:09 CDT 2004 Top

SQL Server >> Recommendations for where to keep the data and logs Hi,

I recommend you to keep LDF files and .NET application in one drive and MDF
seperately
in a different drive. Reson being MDF file is heavily accessed by all
operations. By keeping like this will
reduce the Disk IO. In future if you find more disk I/O in any of the drives
using sp_detach_db and sp_attach_db you can change the file locations.

Thanks
Hari
MCDBA




> We are setting up a server with 3 redundant (RAID 1)drives:
> C: system (30GB)
> D: .Net web application (170GB)
> E: (170GB)
>
> I want to make certain that the SQL data and logs are on separate physical
> drives.
>
> Should I put the data on the same drive that holds the .NET application OR
> should the logs go on the same drive as the .NET application?
>
> Thank you in advance,
> Timothy Ross
>
>


 
 
Jaxon





PostPosted: Fri Jul 09 10:34:43 CDT 2004 Top

SQL Server >> Recommendations for where to keep the data and logs so your sql box will be the same as your web box ?

(DANGER, DANGER, DANGER)....

It is highly recommended that you not put your SQL Server on the same box as
your web server (Security, performance, etc)

Now having said that.....

I suppose you can pick between logs or data hosted in the same location as
your app.

is your application doing anything that is IO intensive ? (I suspect not)


log will be "Write" Intensive

data will likely be more "read" intensive (But I could be wrong)

analyze the useage patters of your DB and make the call. (I'm guessing it's
a wash)


try to get a seperate box so I can sleep at night.



Greg Jackson
PDX, Oregon


 
 
Richard





PostPosted: Fri Jul 09 11:17:25 CDT 2004 Top

SQL Server >> Recommendations for where to keep the data and logs For best performance, the data files should be put on a RAID 5 array instead
of a mirror set. Also better keep the box for SQL server use only.





> We are setting up a server with 3 redundant (RAID 1)drives:
> C: system (30GB)
> D: .Net web application (170GB)
> E: (170GB)
>
> I want to make certain that the SQL data and logs are on separate physical
> drives.
>
> Should I put the data on the same drive that holds the .NET application OR
> should the logs go on the same drive as the .NET application?
>
> Thank you in advance,
> Timothy Ross
>
>


 
 
Jaxon





PostPosted: Fri Jul 09 11:45:15 CDT 2004 Top

SQL Server >> Recommendations for where to keep the data and logs correction.

for "best" performance, the data files should be put on RAID 1+0


GAJ


 
 
Richard





PostPosted: Fri Jul 09 11:51:15 CDT 2004 Top

SQL Server >> Recommendations for where to keep the data and logs right. Lot of shops have tight budget so for them RAID 10 is not an option.




> correction.
>
> for "best" performance, the data files should be put on RAID 1+0
>
>
> GAJ
>
>


 
 
Timothy





PostPosted: Fri Jul 09 12:28:44 CDT 2004 Top

SQL Server >> Recommendations for where to keep the data and logs Hari,

Thank you for your recommendation.

I will make sure the web app and log files are on the same drive and that
the .mdf (data files) are on the separate drive.

TR


> Hi,
>
> I recommend you to keep LDF files and .NET application in one drive and
MDF
> seperately
> in a different drive. Reson being MDF file is heavily accessed by all
> operations. By keeping like this will
> reduce the Disk IO. In future if you find more disk I/O in any of the
drives
> using sp_detach_db and sp_attach_db you can change the file locations.
>
> Thanks
> Hari
> MCDBA
>
>


> > We are setting up a server with 3 redundant (RAID 1)drives:
> > C: system (30GB)
> > D: .Net web application (170GB)
> > E: (170GB)
> >
> > I want to make certain that the SQL data and logs are on separate
physical
> > drives.
> >
> > Should I put the data on the same drive that holds the .NET application
OR
> > should the logs go on the same drive as the .NET application?
> >
> > Thank you in advance,
> > Timothy Ross
> >
> >
>
>


 
 
Timothy





PostPosted: Fri Jul 09 12:34:57 CDT 2004 Top

SQL Server >> Recommendations for where to keep the data and logs Jaxon,

Of course I would like to have two separate boxes (one application and the
other data), but that is not my call.

I could run the .NET web application on my system drive (C: drive) and run
data on D and logs on E, but prefer to keep the application off of the
system drive.

I will run the application and SQL logs on the second drive and keep the SQL
data on the third drive.

Thanks for assisting me (you can sleep good tonight),
TR





> so your sql box will be the same as your web box ?
>
> (DANGER, DANGER, DANGER)....
>
> It is highly recommended that you not put your SQL Server on the same box
as
> your web server (Security, performance, etc)
>
> Now having said that.....
>
> I suppose you can pick between logs or data hosted in the same location as
> your app.
>
> is your application doing anything that is IO intensive ? (I suspect not)
>
>
> log will be "Write" Intensive
>
> data will likely be more "read" intensive (But I could be wrong)
>
> analyze the useage patters of your DB and make the call. (I'm guessing
it's
> a wash)
>
>
> try to get a seperate box so I can sleep at night.
>
>
>
> Greg Jackson
> PDX, Oregon
>
>


 
 
Timothy





PostPosted: Fri Jul 09 12:41:47 CDT 2004 Top

SQL Server >> Recommendations for where to keep the data and logs I have never heard of RAID 1+0. I thought it was RAID 10 or RAID 0+1.

Either way, this existing server has 3 sets of RAID 1 and that is what I
have to deal with (just trying to do the best with what I have).

TR


> correction.
>
> for "best" performance, the data files should be put on RAID 1+0
>
>
> GAJ
>
>


 
 
Timothy





PostPosted: Fri Jul 09 12:44:34 CDT 2004 Top

SQL Server >> Recommendations for where to keep the data and logs Richard,

I would love to have a separate SQL box - it's not my call. I have an
existing box with 3 RAID 1 drive sets and my fingers crossed.

TR



> For best performance, the data files should be put on a RAID 5 array
instead
> of a mirror set. Also better keep the box for SQL server use only.
>
>
>


> > We are setting up a server with 3 redundant (RAID 1)drives:
> > C: system (30GB)
> > D: .Net web application (170GB)
> > E: (170GB)
> >
> > I want to make certain that the SQL data and logs are on separate
physical
> > drives.
> >
> > Should I put the data on the same drive that holds the .NET application
OR
> > should the logs go on the same drive as the .NET application?
> >
> > Thank you in advance,
> > Timothy Ross
> >
> >
>
>


 
 
Jaxon





PostPosted: Fri Jul 09 14:36:33 CDT 2004 Top

SQL Server >> Recommendations for where to keep the data and logs RAID 10 is 1+0

0+1 is "Very" close to the same thing


1+0 is Mirrored Stripes

0+1 is Striped Mirrors



GAJ






> I have never heard of RAID 1+0. I thought it was RAID 10 or RAID 0+1.
>
> Either way, this existing server has 3 sets of RAID 1 and that is what I
> have to deal with (just trying to do the best with what I have).
>
> TR


> > correction.
> >
> > for "best" performance, the data files should be put on RAID 1+0
> >
> >
> > GAJ
> >
> >
>
>


 
 
Jaxon





PostPosted: Fri Jul 09 15:19:25 CDT 2004 Top

SQL Server >> Recommendations for where to keep the data and logs QUIT.....I'll Hire you....

;-)



GAJ