Dan Guzman wrote:
> > With what you have I would stick data/log files onto the disc 3/4 pair,
> > then look for more budget.
>
> With the current config, Hank could place logs on the OS mirrored drives.
> Isolating data/log files would be best for both performance and
> recoverability. I wouldn't expect the OS drives to get hit much on a
> dedicated SQL box so I don't see the point on avoiding the OS mirror.
>
> --
> Hope this helps.
>
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
>
> "John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:43e60123$0$5003$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> > Hi
> >
> > You don't really have enough to play with to make a system that I would go
> > for. Separating data files from log files and the OS would require another
> > set of Raid 1 discs. To make your system more resilient the data files
> > would require another disc on top of that to give Raid 5 although Raid 10
> > would be preferable.
> >
> > You may want to read:
> >
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/rc_hardware_planning.asp > >
> > With what you have I would stick data/log files onto the disc 3/4 pair,
> > then look for more budget.
> >
> > John
> >
> > "Hank Rouse" <hank_top_sf@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:BA9Ff.41737$dW3.17682@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> >> Question, I have a dedicated SQL Server box, just the OS and SQL Server,
> >> and
> >> was curious as to where best to setup DB.
> >>
> >> Drive Size What
> >> Drive1 73GB OS & SQL Server Software
> >> Drive2 73GB mirror of Drive 2
> >> Drive3 300GB Actual DBs
> >> Drive4 300GB mirror of Drive 3
> >>
> >> In doing so, my reasoning would be to leave the OS alone. Will be
> >> running
> >> either Windows 2003 server, or 2000 Advanced Server, not sure yet.
> >>
> >> Presently have about 4M records archived in different Access DBs, and I
> >> know
> >> size will grow to about 33M within 1 year.
> >>
> >> TIA,
> >> Hank
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
