July 15, 2017 at 3:58 pm
We are setting up SQL Server 2016 on a new server. The server is loaded with the following physical arrays:
ARRAY0 – 2 x 2TB SSD’s RAID1
ARRAY1 – 2 x 2TB SSD’s RAID1
ARRAY2 – 4 x 6TB SATA 7200RPM DRIVES RAID10 (total storage 12TB)
The plan for ARRAY1 is to be for the transaction log. Since 2TB is too much for the transaction log, there will be some data there as well.
The common recommendation is to have the transaction log on a separate drive. In my case, is there any point to have ARRAY 1 partitioned into 2 logical drive to have the transaction log on one logical drive and the rest of stuff on another?
July 18, 2017 at 6:31 am
When splitting data and log files, for performance reasons its been a recommendation for separate spindles....when using rotating disk drives in a non-SAN setup.
Logical volumes still use the same spindles, controllers, etc. whether spinning disks or SSD...its really for the human eye more than anything else. I'd leave it as one, so you don't have resizing issues later on.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Standing in the gap between Consultant and ContractorKevin3NFDallasDBAs.com/BlogWhy is my SQL Log File HUGE?!?![/url]The future of the DBA role...[/url]SQL Security Model in Plain English[/url]
July 18, 2017 at 6:39 am
Eliyahu - Saturday, July 15, 2017 3:58 PMIn my case, is there any point to have ARRAY 1 partitioned into 2 logical drive to have the transaction log on one logical drive and the rest of stuff on another?
Other than controlling space, no.
It can be useful to ensure that one of the data files growing unexpectedly can't result in the log files being out of space, but that's about all.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply