I have inherited some responsibilities for which I'm not really qualified, so I'll push on through and maybe not totally fall down.
Assume 10 50GB databases, each in a single MDF file. All these MDF files reside on the C drive (the only drive on the system), running SQL 2005 in a 32-bit Windows 2003 or later, 8GB RAM.
The C drive is 6 physical disks in RAID 5, say about 1.0 TB or so. We have 4 dual-core processors on the box.
We have limited simultaneous users, initally about 8 users doing very heavy write on all tables in any one database. Later, we have about 15 users connecting via Web interface, and doing very heavy read and light writing. Each of the 10 or so database has this lifecycle: Heavy write for about 2 weeks (load data) then heavy read for about 1 month (research and search data), then nothing ever again (db is taken offline).
Of course, this is not enough information to go on, but let's just go on it anyway.
My TempDB, Log (simple recovery), Index etc is all on the same RAID 5 drive (C).
I have two basic questions I'd love to hear feedback on:
1. Is there any real advantage to creating 8 Data files for my database (one per processor core)?
2. Given that the hardware people here REALLY don't want to change anything, what should I fight for first:
a. Separate drive for LOG files?
b. Separate drive for TempDB?
c. Something else
Thanks in advance.
1. The one file per processor rule of thumb applies to tempdb. It does help performance to have multiple files though.
2 . Those aren't the best of options - my C would be a new disk subsystem. But if you can only have one, I'd go for separate drives for the log file. And I'd want them on a RAID 10 or RAID 1.
-Sue
No comments:
Post a Comment