October 22, 2010 at 7:56 am
I've done some research on this, but honestly really can't find an absolutely hands down compelling reason for locating the system databases off the c: drive where the OS resides.
In my environment
Space on c: drive is not an issue.
I don't find navigating through the file system to system databases ( and log files) a big deal or cumbersome.
As I understand it, these system databases ( with perhaps the exception being temp) don't really get much use, are not "write or read" intensive, say as compared to "User" databases.
So moving them to another physical disk with better performance characteristics doesn't seem to make much sense to me, and or worth the trouble to be perfectly honest.
I realize I could be completely missing the boat here, so if I am, I welcome input to enlighten me.
October 22, 2010 at 8:00 am
its because if your OS get corrupt and you not able to get hold of your C drive.
----------
Ashish
October 22, 2010 at 8:05 am
crazy4sql (10/22/2010)
its because if your OS get corrupt and you not able to get hold of your C drive.
If your user databases aren't located on the c: drive who cares!? Your SQL binaries are located on c:, so if the machine goes stupid, SQL Server isn't going to work regardless of where your system databases are located, right? Or am I totally missing something here?
October 22, 2010 at 8:18 am
If your user databases aren't located on the c: drive who cares!?
You must give priority to system database(specially master/model/msdb/resource/distribution(if applicable)) and then user database.
I will suggest please read an article on the usage of system database in sql server.
Your SQL binaries are located on c:, so if the machine goes stupid, SQL Server isn't going to work regardless of where your system databases are located, right? Or am I totally missing something here
yes SQL will not work and you will not be able to access any of the databases.
----------
Ashish
October 22, 2010 at 8:31 am
I'm not trying to be argumentative, seriously. I understand the importance of the system databases.
But with respect to your last post....
> yes SQL will not work and you will not be able to access any of the databases.
Exactly, that's my point. So what difference does it make where the system databases are located if your main system with the c: drive goes south? You're going to have to rebuild your c: drive anyhow, and re-install the SQL server binaries. Thus creating a completely new set of system databases.
If you had your "old" system databases on say d: drive prior to the machine going south, you can't use "old" system databases.
So in light of all that, protecting the User databases seems to me to be of the most or paramount importance. As well as placing them on more efficient disks with better performance.
Right??
October 22, 2010 at 8:36 am
thats why I suggest you to have a look of the use of the system database in sql server.
For example .. if you loose msdb, you will loose all jobs. Loose master, you will loose all logins....loose model, you will loose all defaults.
There are other importance as well, in addition to the line i mentioned above.
----------
Ashish
October 22, 2010 at 8:48 am
This one question I have always wanted an answer to as well. In some environments, where OS drive space is limited, I can see the point.
If you have the space why not put the system DBs on the same drive as the OS. If its a SQL dedicated machine, thats where they should be. TempDB is separated out for obvious reasons, Model is used for creating of new DBs, MASTER and MSDB are the only ones doing any work and I would hope a lot less than the user DBs.
Precisely why I hoping for a MS SQLOS all rolled into one nice easy clean package. So the server is a SQL server.... not Windows Server with SQL, IIS, etc, etc, etc.
Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply