October 2, 2007 at 5:20 am
Hello all,
We have an MSA1000 with 14 72GB HDD, an MSA30 with 14 300GB HDD and an empty MSA30.
Our main DB is 300+ GB. The 300GB are in an array (12 HDD) that is raid 10, with 2 HDD as spares. The 72gb (one array of 14 HDD)are used as backup and is raid 0.
I'm wondering how much performance gain we'd get if we purchase some more HDD for the empty MSA30, create two new arrays. One for the TempDB and the other for the TransLogs.
How much storage should the TempDB have? The current size is 56GB.
Thoughts?
October 7, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Depends 😉
If you have heavy tempdb or log usage (based on transactions), then you might get a performance improvement. Keep in mind that data files usually have lots of random access, logs are sequential, so separate physicals can have improved performance if your system is busy. If you don't have lots of data changes, the log might not significantly impact performance.
You need as much tempdb space as you need. It depends on load. There's no way to estimate tempdb usage based on data or log size. Track the size of temdb over time and see how much space is being used.
October 8, 2007 at 6:41 am
I measure throughput on tempdb as well as other databases - see this link on counters to use etc. It may help.
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/archive/tags/Trending+and+Statistics/default.aspx
I figure if tempdb has more throughput then the other databases putting it on a seperate array may help. You might also want to consider using multiple files in each filegroup , easy for tempdb but tricky for existing databases. More spindles are always good especially raid 10. you'll need to trend to see where you can gain most
[font="Comic Sans MS"]The GrumpyOldDBA[/font]
www.grumpyolddba.co.uk
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/
October 22, 2007 at 7:03 am
Thanks for your replies.
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply