SQL Server Performance

New server setup question - disks

Discussion in 'SQL Server 2008 Performance Tuning for Hardware' started by greg.balajewicz, Jul 27, 2009.

  1. greg.balajewicz New Member

    Hello everyone!!
    I am not a DBA but have a bit of experience with administering SQL Server 2005 and now need to decide on hardware for a new server.
    QUESTION:I would like to ask for your opinion on the disk setup I am proposing...
    2U dell server, dual quad core, 32GB RAM, 8x2.5" sas 15Krpm 73GB disks.
    Volume 1: RAID 1, 2 disks. OS & TempDB (73gb)
    Volume 2: RAID 10, 4 disks. Datafiles (146gb)
    Volume 3: RAID 1, 2 disks. TransacitonLogs (37gb)
    sql server will contain 5 databases, ~5-10GB each. Doing a lot of writes and reads (OLTP). The server is also an ASP.NET application server
    Besided asking for general comments on this, I wonder if I should put TempDB on Volume 1 or Volume 2? I suspect Volume 2 is a better option..
    Thank you all in advance!!
  2. moh_hassan20 New Member

    It is better for tempdb a separate disk as you did
    use 64 bit O.S
    if you can , let SQL server in dedicated server , and ASP.net in separate server
  3. greg.balajewicz New Member

    yes, i am using 64 bit os and sql server. No chance of having 2 servers however - asp.net and sql must be on the same machine for now.
    I am concerned about putting TEMPDB on volume 1 since this is raid 1 and I heard that TEMPDB should ideally be on raid 0 or 10....
  4. zzx375 New Member

    RAID 1 for tempdb is a new one on me. I would be curious as to the rationale.
  5. greg.balajewicz New Member

    well, most articles suggest wither RAID 10 OR RAID 0 for tempdb.
    I don't have a raid 0 volume available so my choice is:
    (a) put temp db on RAID 10 volume, but this would put it on the same volume/spindles as datafiles for databases
    (b) put temp db on one of my RAID 1 volumes (either the OS volumne, or transaction logs volume)
  6. moh_hassan20 New Member

    i suggest (a)

Share This Page