January 31, 2008 at 11:43 am
I originally posted this in 2000 forum, but thought I should put it here since we'll be upgrading to 2005 later in the year.
I have acquired a new server and am planning on the install and migration from the old server.
c:\ RAID1 (OS)
d:\ RAID5 (Backups, Application)
h:\ RAID10 (SAN - Data)
i:\ RAID10 (SAN - Data)
j:\ RAID10 (SAN - Index)
k:\ RAID10 (SAN - Index)
l:\ RAID10 (SAN - Logs)
m:\ RAID10 (SAN - tempdb)
The server has several user databases, although 90% usage comes out of 1 "customers" database. That includes space as well.
My initial thoughts were to put all user dbs on h: and all system dbs on i:. I would also split off one particular table "sales_transactions" from "Customers" onto the i: drive. This table represents half of the overall size of the db and will have costly select transactions against it. Writes to this table are performed once a night from the mainframe.
Should this one database be put by itself on one of the data drives, leaving the second data drive to be shared among the remaining user dbs and system dbs?
Or, should I keep the user dbs together on one drive and system dbs on the other?
Or, does my original plan sound best?
Hopefully this is enough information. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance!
January 31, 2008 at 12:02 pm
JuanBob (1/31/2008)
I originally posted this in 2000 forum, but thought I should put it here since we'll be upgrading to 2005 later in the year.I have acquired a new server and am planning on the install and migration from the old server.
c:\ RAID1 (OS)
d:\ RAID5 (Backups, Application)
h:\ RAID10 (SAN - Data)
i:\ RAID10 (SAN - Data)
j:\ RAID10 (SAN - Index)
k:\ RAID10 (SAN - Index)
l:\ RAID10 (SAN - Logs)
m:\ RAID10 (SAN - tempdb)
The server has several user databases, although 90% usage comes out of 1 "customers" database. That includes space as well.
My initial thoughts were to put all user dbs on h: and all system dbs on i:. I would also split off one particular table "sales_transactions" from "Customers" onto the i: drive. This table represents half of the overall size of the db and will have costly select transactions against it. Writes to this table are performed once a night from the mainframe.
Should this one database be put by itself on one of the data drives, leaving the second data drive to be shared among the remaining user dbs and system dbs?
Or, should I keep the user dbs together on one drive and system dbs on the other?
Or, does my original plan sound best?
Hopefully this is enough information. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance!
Sounds like customers db needs to be seperate....can you free up on of the 'index' drives (j or k) for. I would also try to avoid putting the system and remaining user dbs on the same drive. You really need some hard numbers about IO for each database to make this decision. Are you gathering performance stats? The answer lies within the performance, namely IO stats.....
January 31, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Thanks for the response!
I can rearrange so that I only have one Index drive, and three data drives.
I have done some performance monitoring for IO. The difficulty is the fact that the Sales_Transactions table is not heavily used at this time. That will change in the near future. The highest IO is associated with the primary customers table- Customers_Main and Customers_Secondary. These tables are 100K each in size and just about any SELECT for these tables perform an INNER JOIN. I have pondered upon splitting these two tables, however, we do not currently have a bottleneck with the disk and I expect that we will hit a threshold once the sales_transactions table starts being used.
With all the monitoring I have done, I can only theorize expected IO once sales_transactions starts being queried. I expect that I will be able to maneuver the files and filegroups once I am able to monitor this tables IO and disk performance.
Assuming sales_transactions will have very demanding IO, would it be advisable to have all userdbs on H, sales_transactions on I, syste dbs on J, and all user indexes on K?
h:\ RAID10 (SAN - Data)
i:\ RAID10 (SAN - Data)
j:\ RAID10 (SAN - Data)
k:\ RAID10 (SAN - Index)
l:\ RAID10 (SAN - Logs)
m:\ RAID10 (SAN - tempdb)
Thanks again!
January 31, 2008 at 1:18 pm
I'd go ahead and put in a request for another raid drive. You've got things split up pretty nicely now and this future plan looks good under these constraints. Another raid drive gives you more flexibility....
January 31, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Excellent, thank you much!!
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply