SQL Server Performance

Drive Configuration-web app

Discussion in 'SQL Server 2005 Performance Tuning for Hardware' started by briang, Oct 15, 2008.

  1. briang New Member

    I've read a lot of the posts here and it has been most helpful but the database server drive recommendations do seem to be situation specific.
    My situation:
    Dell PE 2900 16gb RAM, 1 quad core 2.5ghz cpu (for now), 8 + 2 drive bays, Sql Server 2005 Standard
    - how many users? 25 concurrent users
    - how big are the databases? 2 databases , 1 - 60gb, 1 - 600gb
    - oltp or dss? 90% oltp, 10% dss
    - how much read versus write actity? 66% read, 33% write
    - when running reports/batch jobs how much data would be read? largest table (Account Master) is 4.6gb and it is hit in every job/report
    - if you know then what sort of IO rate do you need for your apps? Don't know. What I can say is that the oltp users are on the other side of a VPN tunnel over 10mb Internet connection and that is where I need to focus my performance.
    I need to fill up the 10 drive bays with some RAID configuration/s of: OS & Binaries, Data, TLogs, Tempdb?
    I have two Drive Choices for the 10 bays (max out while I have the budget): 450gb 15K SAS, 1tb 7.2K Nearline SAS
    I considered the 1tb 7.2k Nearline SAS due to $ savings and increased capacity but am waffeling due to possible performance decrease?
    What would be your suggestions?
    Much Thanks, Briang

  2. briang New Member

    I posted this question in three forums. This was one replyfrom another forum. Sharing the info. Hope Mr. Harvey doen't mind.
    I hope you will be running the 64-bit version of SQL Server.

    With 10 drive bays I might go for one mirrored pair for the OS and
    paging, the C: drive in other words; a second mirrored pair for
    database log files, and the other six drives in a RAID 10 set.
    Allocating dollars, the log drives would be the first place to use the
    high performance drives. If you also used them for the data in the
    six drive RAID 10 set that would only give you 1.35GB. Since you are
    already at 6.6 GB of data I would sat that is marginal and would
    probably go for the slower, higher capacity drives for the data.
    However I would make certain to get six; you would have enough space
    with fewer, but extra spindles means more performance. I would go
    with whatever is cheaper for the C: drive. The log and data for
    tempdb would be split the same way log and data are for the other

    Roy Harvey
    Beacon Falls, CT

Share This Page