November 14, 2012 at 12:53 pm
I have a new box, 2 processors 64-bit running Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise with three disk:
Disk0 C: (Boot, system files) 39.6GB Free 79GB Total
Disk1 E: (Page file) 33.9GB Free 289GB Total
Disk2 D: 283 GB Free 299GB Total
This will be a dedicated SQL Server running 2008 R2, with a small/medium workload for OLTP (100 users not concurrent).
Would it be better to have the disk set up with the OS having 2 disks on RAID1, the logs files also RAID1 with 2 disks and SQL data on RAID5 (preferably RAID10) with a minimum of three disks. Please offer any suggestion that will help performance.
November 14, 2012 at 8:18 pm
kd11 (11/14/2012)
I have a new box, 2 processors 64-bit running Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise with three disk:Disk0 C: (Boot, system files) 39.6GB Free 79GB Total
Disk1 E: (Page file) 33.9GB Free 289GB Total
Disk2 D: 283 GB Free 299GB Total
This will be a dedicated SQL Server running 2008 R2, with a small/medium workload for OLTP (100 users not concurrent).
Would it be better to have the disk set up with the OS having 2 disks on RAID1, the logs files also RAID1 with 2 disks and SQL data on RAID5 (preferably RAID10) with a minimum of three disks. Please offer any suggestion that will help performance.
2 things:
Sufficient ram to hold all of the working set in memory.
A raid controller that does battery backed write caching.
Also, how big is your paging file? properly configured SQL servers should use very little of the page file.
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 1 (of 1 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply