August 25, 2011 at 1:22 pm
One company "audits" my database and suggests:
"The SQL binaries and Database should not be stored on the same disk. These factors have a negtive impact on the database peformance"
Before I ask the "auditor', I like to ask the professional guys here:
What are the SQL binaries? The system files? including all these files in the bin directory? or the system database files?
My database is not big: less than 60 mb, should I seperate my database from the system files to improve the performance?
My server is IBM SERIES_3200M2, with intel CPU 2.66GHz and 3.00GB of RAM. I have never experienced performance issue in this database so far and database is not growing because I purge the data regulaly.
Thank you for your time
Yan
August 25, 2011 at 1:32 pm
Yes, with "SQL Binaries" they probably mean the installation files and folders.
IMHO I don't think it is as much a performance issue. I suppose the spindles could work overtime if the database gets big...meaning performance could go down. But in your case it is probably neglible. I would rather classify it as not being best practise.
You wouldn't want to lose both your data files and SQL Server instance if that drive gets corrupted. Then again (and depending on usage), if it's only 60MB and you are making backups regularly it probably isn't much of an issue.
Still best practise to split data and installation files physically though...
August 25, 2011 at 1:55 pm
Thank you,
My server has 5 disks and in RAID 5, partitionted with C: D: E
C:\ for OS + an application
D:\ SQL DB (for that application)
E:\ Contains large amout of image files.
In this environment, what is the best soluation? Install SQL in C: with OS? or put the database onto E: where has many images files (about 1 Tgb size).
Thank you
Yan
August 25, 2011 at 2:08 pm
I'm no hardware expert, but in this case it wouldn't matter since you have all disks in the array. Being in RAID 5, all your data is striped across all drives.
Usually you would want a separate and dedicated local drive for OS (and yes you can install SQL on that drive too), with data on separate physical and logical drives. You normally would not want your OS drive (logical or physical) to be part of the same array as your data.
In the end it all depends on what you are doing with that database. It is really small, and if I were you I wouldn't worry too much about the drives, unless you foresee it growing much.
Rather make sure that you have regular backups (verified and tested) in case of a failure.
That's my 2 cents...plenty of people here with more hardware knowledge, so I am hoping they will chime in 🙂
August 25, 2011 at 2:28 pm
Journeyman
Thank you!
I do regular backup (full backup every day) with Transaction log backup
The back up files are backed up to the tape each day.
The reason I asked, is the "auditor" suggested so.
Have a nice day
Yan
August 25, 2011 at 2:36 pm
Sure...no problem 🙂
Auditors usually have finding/recommendation checklists with standard responses. While the auditor's comment does have some value and significance, it fails to take all factors into consideration (especially the application and usage of the database).
I guess that's why they are auditors and not DBA's 😛
Martin.
Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply