SQL Server Performance Forum – Threads Archive

to partition or not to partition?

So i have a new server thats going to be our new Database server (win2003 sql2k). It has 2 130gb drives configured in raid 1 (mirrored) the drives came without any partitions and as i’m aware, if money was no object, i should run the logs on a seperate drive, the OS on a seperate drive and the database files on a seperate drive etc. Is their any point in partitioning the drive so that i can have the OS on the C: and the data on a d: ? will this cause a loss in performance? I’m intending to move the backups, and transaction logs to another server pretty frequently (maybe every 15-30 minutes) so i have a warm backup anyway…

I don’t think that you are going to get too much performance benefits out of partitioning. It may be a good idea since it will keep things neater, and it will give you options when it comes to maintenance and upgrades. For instance, if your partition goes bad, then it is easier to re-format or repair that segment, rather than the entire drive and defragmenting a smaller partition is obviously quicker. Of course, this will all depend on your case, but IMHO, you should definitely keep logs and database files on separate drives. – Tahsin

it depends what you mean by partitions,
if table partitions (SQL 2005) or views, don’t bother, this is too small if you meant splitting into multiple file or file groups, there is nothing wrong with 2 files or filegroups, but don’t go over board for a small database

Hi, thanks for the help. Tahsin: i agree with all you’ve said, i think the only benefit of creating a partition in this case will be to protect against windows messing up and haveing to format the drive when i re-install, (hopefully making a drive image will prevent this). joechang: i’m talking about creating partitions on the disk, maybe you should read the post [<img src=’/community/emoticons/emotion-5.gif’ alt=’

‘ />]

]]>