May 10, 2017 at 2:50 am
Hello,
Windows Server 2012, 48Gb ram, SQL 2016 Standard with:
- 1 disk SAS for Windows and SQL binary (C: )
- 2 SSD disk for data (D: and E: )
Talking about performance, what is the better way to put tempdb, mdf and log of my OLTP Database (about 50Gb, about 100 simultaneous users)?
Maybe:
C: - OS and sql binary
D: - MyDB and Tempdb data file
E: - MyDB and TempDB log file
(D: and E: are physical disk, i don't think it's useful for performance creating more Logical partition to divide objects, or not?)
It's the "better" way?
Thanks!
Paolo
May 10, 2017 at 3:01 am
Hi,
I would use something like this:
C: => OS files
D: => sql binary
E: => tempdb
F: => mdf files
G: => ldf files
H: => maybe backup files
I think, it is no good idea, to put user database and tempdb together.
May 10, 2017 at 3:36 am
andreas.kreuzberg - Wednesday, May 10, 2017 3:01 AMHi,
I would use something like this:
C: => OS files
D: => sql binary
E: => tempdb
F: => mdf files
G: => ldf files
H: => maybe backup filesI think, it is no good idea, to put user database and tempdb together.
Hi,
i agree, "logically" talking, i can create many windows logical units
But "physically" talking, with the configuration above (3 PHYSICAL disk, 1 SAS and 2 SSD), looking for PERFORMANCE, what is the ideal placing of all object?
Thanks!!
Paolo
May 11, 2017 at 7:06 am
with 3 disks you're limited, most of the separation you perform will be of management advantage only
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs" 😉
May 11, 2017 at 8:58 am
Perry Whittle - Thursday, May 11, 2017 7:06 AMwith 3 disks you're limited, most of the separation you perform will be of management advantage only
OK it's not ideal situation, but better than 1 disk only....
Sure disk SAS for Windows and binary of SQL only.
Then, just putting MDF and LDF of Mydb application on 2 differente disk, it's something. Then i can put tempdb on Mydb.MDF disk. I think its a (maybe little) better choice talking about performance of a OLTP application...
Or maybe DISK A: Mydb.mdf and Tempdb.ldf - DISK B: Mydb.ldf and Tempdb.mdf, for example
(i talk about 2 disk, but really they are 4 disk in Raid, so 2 "physical" ssd disk)
Do you think i'll get NO advantage in this way?
Thank you
Paolo
May 11, 2017 at 9:24 am
paolobianchi - Thursday, May 11, 2017 8:58 AM(i talk about 2 disk, but really they are 4 disk in Raid, so 2 "physical" ssd disk)
Ok thats new to the party, please detail exactly how many physical disks are in the server and their configuration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs" 😉
May 12, 2017 at 6:10 am
Perry Whittle - Thursday, May 11, 2017 9:24 AMpaolobianchi - Thursday, May 11, 2017 8:58 AM(i talk about 2 disk, but really they are 4 disk in Raid, so 2 "physical" ssd disk)Ok thats new to the party, please detail exactly how many physical disks are in the server and their configuration
As i said, 4 ssd disk and 1 SAS disk. Until some day ago, we think of 2 RAID1 of 2 SSD disk every one, and the system disk SAS
Now, after some interesting discussion in other forum, maybe we can re-think raiding... But for better solution we need at least 5 disk, with 4 SSD disk i don't know if there is another better solution...
Let's talk about this and then dividing of MDF, LDF and Tempdb, then 🙂
Thanks
Paolo
Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply