October 13, 2010 at 1:54 am
The answer to this question is based on what the requirements are for your server.
Is it a server that needs to be able to cope with lots of concurrent users and a large use of tempdb?
If it is a fairly simple application with not many concurrent users and low use of tempdb db I do not see any harm with the tempdb mdf and ldf being on the same drive, but if your company storage set up is anything like where I work I don't get much say in the separation of the drives to spindles on our SAN storage until we hit performance issues around IO.
Get to know the systems that you are supporting and if possible build a standard for what your disk set up should be and then have exceptions to these based on the system.
October 13, 2010 at 2:20 am
Nice Marmot (10/12/2010)
Is it now best practice (i.e. least hassle) to leave the master and mssqlsystemresource databases in the default install location?
On SQL 2008 the mssqlsystemresource is in the binn directory and should be treated as though it were a dll - i.e. not moved.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
October 13, 2010 at 5:10 am
GilaMonster (10/13/2010)
Nice Marmot (10/12/2010)
Is it now best practice (i.e. least hassle) to leave the master and mssqlsystemresource databases in the default install location?On SQL 2008 the mssqlsystemresource is in the binn directory and should be treated as though it were a dll - i.e. not moved.
sorry I should have clarified that. Still in 2005 mode :blush:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Viewing 3 posts - 16 through 17 (of 17 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply