Please start any new threads on our new
site at https://forums.sqlteam.com. We've got lots of great SQL Server
experts to answer whatever question you can come up with.
| Author |
Topic |
|
kioteh
Starting Member
16 Posts |
 Posted - 2010-09-13 : 16:57:03
|
| I wanted to raise a question to the larger audience and see if my thinking is correct (i.e. I'm in an argument with someone). I have a couple of scenarios for drive setups, they are as follows.Server A:It's a virtual server and has one big c:\ drive. Since this is a really just one big .vhd that holds the OS, SQL Server, and all other files, is there really any benefit to having a c:\, d:\, e:\ to logically separate data files, log files, backups, etc. I can appreciate the idea of making sure you don't fill the OS drive with a runaway log and bringing down the OS but is there any performance increase?Server B:Similar situation as above except it's a physical machine. It has one RAID 5 set. Is there any benefit to logically separating the c:\, d:\, and e:\ drives if they're all on the same RAID array or would you get the same performance if it was just one big c:\? Seems to me that unless you set them up on different RAID sets that it wouldn't matter. Any thoughts or feedback? |
|
|
russell
Pyro-ma-ni-yak
5072 Posts |
Posted - 2010-09-13 : 17:21:00
|
| yes, there is still a benefit to logically partitioning the drive -- especially in a multi-processor system.here is some good reading on the sunjecthttp://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc966420.aspx#ECAAhttp://www.sql-server-performance.com/tips/installation_setup_p1.aspxhttp://blogs.msdn.com/b/sqlcat/archive/2005/10/11/479887.aspxhttp://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd758814(SQL.100).aspxhttp://sqlblog.com/blogs/joe_chang/archive/2008/03/04/storage-performance-for-sql-server.aspx |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SQL Server HDD performance