SQL Server Performance

New 'small' server config question

Discussion in 'SQL Server 2005 T-SQL Performance Tuning' started by jimbowan, Nov 4, 2007.

  1. jimbowan New Member

    Hi guys,
    I have a reasonably small server compared to most of your setups and reccomended setups, yet it should be a major upgrade for us.
    I have a dual quad core IBM, 9gb RAM, 8 x 146gb SAS drives with Serveraid controller, 2005 SQL Standard x64, Win 2003 Ent x64
    I plan to setup the drives as follows;
    Array 1) 2 x 146gb drives in RAID1. - OS, Logs, Pagefile
    Array 2) 6 x 146gb drives in RAID10 - Database, 8 x tempdb, Backups
    My question is, would you move the pagefile onto the second Array so it wasn't on the same logical drive as the logs? Or is this of small consequence?
    Also what size would you make the Pagefile? I have seen many many differing views on x64 pagefile sizes in new machines with large capacity RAM. I was thinking going with a formula I saw which was 10% physical minimum, 150% maximum (so 900mb - 13.5gb) Any comments on this?
    TIA
    jimbowan, Nov 4, 2007
    #2

  2. Luis Martin Moderator

    I'll go with pagefile in RAID1.
    Anyway, SQL don't use pagefile a lot.
    Is SQL dedicated?
    Luis Martin, Nov 4, 2007
    #3

  3. jimbowan New Member

    Yes the server will be 100% SQL only. We have learned our lesson sharing SQL with file server read/writes.
    jimbowan, Nov 4, 2007
    #4

  4. satya Moderator

    Think about memory usage on the server by the application when database calls have been made.
    Putting log and pagefile on same drive may have some issues in future, based on the growth of databases.
    Running low on space in the system page file(s). This may cause the system to fail memory allocations, as it is unable to page out currently allocated memory. This condition may result in the whole system responding very slowly or even bring it to a halt.
    satya, Nov 5, 2007
    #5

Share This Page