Just to be sure, I wanted to know what you guys think of this...<br /><br />Version: Microsoft SQL Server 2000 - 8.00.760 (Intel X86) Dec 17 2002 14:22:05 Copyright (c) 1988-2003 Microsoft Corporation Enterprise Edition on Windows NT 5.2 (Build 3790: ) <br /><br />Table A: 15 million records, full text index on 1 field<br />table B: 200 million records<br /><br />A : B = 1 : n<br /><br />Users can search in table A in 2 ways:<br /><br />1) Table scan. They provide additional information so only a small part of the table is scanned<br />2) Full text search. They want to search the entire table (limited to x results) so the fti is used<br /><br />users will make a selection from the query results from table A.<br />After doing this they will press a button and the corresponding records from table B will be fetched.<br />The application they use is a webapplication (ASP.NET)<br /><br />Every day around 375000 records are added to table A, and around 5 million records are added to table B.<br />Also the same amount of records are deleted from those tables.<br /><br />The most important thing is that searching in table A goes as fast as possible.<br />The new server my company has ordered has 16 SCSI harddrives and it is my job to configure them for maximum performance.<br /><br />This is what I had in mind:<br /><br />Set 1) 2 disk RAID 1: OS, Website, MySQL Database (for the forum), SQL Server Logfiles<br />Set 2) 4 disk RAID 10: Table A Datafiles<br />Set 3) 4 disk RAID 10: Table A Indexfiles + Table B Datafiles + Table C-G Data and Indexfiles (some small tables)<br />Set 4) 4 disk RAID 10: Full Text Index files<br />set 5) 2 disk RAID 0: TempDB + pagefiles.sys<br /><br />Now my questions <img src='/community/emoticons/emotion-1.gif' alt='' /><br /><br />a) Is this a good setup or should I change it. Maybe even go for 1 big RAID 10 setup?<br />b) Should I still split up the datafiles of the tables (like we do now) and keep the rule of 1 datafile per physical drive? Or just make 1 big file per table?