September 1, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Hi,
We are going to install SQL Server 2008 in a 2 node cluster on Windows 2008.
We have one local drive C (OS) and the rest are Shared Drives. But I read in many forums suggesting that to have one more local drive lets say D:\ and keep the SQL Server binaries and other like Shared Directory folder on D drive instead of C (OS) drive.
Questions:
1. What is the purpose of separately placing SQL Server binaries and Shared Feature directory on Separate disk?
2. Do we gain any performance?
3. Does this help SQL Server to stay on line in case OS crashes?
If there is NO benefit in keeping SQL Server binaries and Shared Feature directory on Separate disk, I would like to avoid of having one separate local drive,
Please advice what is the best practice and what is the directory structure most DBA follow?
Thanks
September 1, 2010 at 6:19 pm
I see no benefit to installing SQL Server binaries to another drive. When I install SQL Server, I take the default location for the program files and put the database files on the clustered drives.
Jeffrey Williams
“We are all faced with a series of great opportunities brilliantly disguised as impossible situations.”
― Charles R. Swindoll
How to post questions to get better answers faster
Managing Transaction Logs
September 1, 2010 at 9:16 pm
I guess that would depend on the size of the drives. On the systems that we were getting just a couple of years ago, we were putting the binaries on D:, so that we could ensure that the system drive (C:) would have > 20gb free. Of course, those drives were only about 30gb to begin with; with today's 100+gb drives, I'd put it all on the C: ... as long as there was still >20gb free. (And yes, the 20gb is an arbitrary number... but I've seen system drives drop fast once you start installing all those OS patches that are coming out.)
Wayne
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server 2008
Author - SQL Server T-SQL Recipes
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply