Multiple Filegroups

Hi experts,

I'm new to SQLServer 2000 and would like some advice on filegroups.

Is there any advantage to seperate the filegroups for different type of data.

For example:

Data_1 for tables
Index_1 for Indexes
Audit_1 for Audit tables

The files for these filegroups would be placed on RAID Disk.

Thanks for any suggestions.Any comments?

I need to know whether there are any performance gain in seperating types of data in different filegroups or is it just good enough to set it to a default secondary filegroup for user data objects.

Please comment.|||Hi,
you can save a lot of system time if you are able to store smart your tables, indexes, ....
This is part from SQL books:

Placing Tables on Filegroups

A table can be created on a specific filegroup rather than the default filegroup. If the filegroup comprises multiple files spread across various physical disks, each with its own disk controller, then queries for data from the table will be spread across the disks, thereby improving performance. The same effect can be accomplished by creating a single file on a RAID (redundant array of independent disks) level 0, 1, or 5 device.

If the computer has multiple processors, Microsoft? SQL Server? 2000 can perform parallel scans of the data. Multiple parallel scans can be executed for a single table regardless of the number of files that are in its filegroup. Additionally, any text, ntext, or image columns within a table can be created on a filegroup other than the one that contains the base table.

Eventually, there is a saturation point when there are too many outstanding I/O's causing bottlenecks in the disk I/O subsystem. These bottlenecks can be identified by using Windows NT? Performance Monitor to monitor the PhysicalDisk object and Disk Queue Length counter. If the Disk Queue Length counter is greater than three, consider spreading the file across more disk drives. For more information, see Monitoring Disk Activity.

It is advantageous to get as much data spread across as many physical drives as possible in order to improve throughput through parallel data access. To spread data evenly across all disks, you can place a single file across striped disks or maintain each disk separately and place a file on each disk.

I hope it will help you. It's very good text.
Bye

|||No, there is no appreciable gain. Filegroups are mainly for ease of administration across multiple volumes, not performance.sql

multiple datafiles- on multiple drives on One raid set

Is there an advantage (besides backup and restore) of creating multiple
datafiles on multiple disks on one physical raid set for a large database (>
200GB) ?
Geert
Performance for example if you query a huge table /s that are on separate
physical discks SQL Server will create two threads to retrieve the data
which means less I/O .
"GeertVdb" <GeertVdb@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C52EB00B-A816-481E-8B5B-A09D0A93ABC8@.microsoft.com...
> Is there an advantage (besides backup and restore) of creating multiple
> datafiles on multiple disks on one physical raid set for a large database
(>
> 200GB) ?
|||Is this also true with on physical raid set with two partitions on it?
We have a HP EVA3000 with virtual raid sets. So all virtual raid 5 set are
distributed over all physical disks (so there are many spindels)
"Uri Dimant" wrote:

> Geert
> Performance for example if you query a huge table /s that are on separate
> physical discks SQL Server will create two threads to retrieve the data
> which means less I/O .
>
> "GeertVdb" <GeertVdb@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C52EB00B-A816-481E-8B5B-A09D0A93ABC8@.microsoft.com...
> (>
>
>
|||Hi
Well , if your database is heavy inserted I afraid a raid 5 is not good idea
,because it needs to maintain an additional disk strip.
For reading ,yes you will get performance benefit.
"geertVDB" <geertVDB@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:92F69BA3-B897-4221-83EA-F48A9EDBBEC6@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Is this also true with on physical raid set with two partitions on it?
> We have a HP EVA3000 with virtual raid sets. So all virtual raid 5 set are
> distributed over all physical disks (so there are many spindels)
> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
separate[vbcol=seagreen]
multiple[vbcol=seagreen]
database[vbcol=seagreen]
|||In general, no. However, sometimes you may see a performance gain when you
have a lot of concurrent update activity in one database. This is especially
true for tempdb. More files in general means more management overhead.
Sometimes it is better to create multiple file groups for large database to
improve manageability.
Wei Xiao[MSFT]
SQL Server Storage Engine Development
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"GeertVdb" <GeertVdb@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C52EB00B-A816-481E-8B5B-A09D0A93ABC8@.microsoft.com...
> Is there an advantage (besides backup and restore) of creating multiple
> datafiles on multiple disks on one physical raid set for a large database
(>
> 200GB) ?

multiple datafiles- on multiple drives on One raid set

Is there an advantage (besides backup and restore) of creating multiple
datafiles on multiple disks on one physical raid set for a large database (>
200GB) ?Geert
Performance for example if you query a huge table /s that are on separate
physical discks SQL Server will create two threads to retrieve the data
which means less I/O .
"GeertVdb" <GeertVdb@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C52EB00B-A816-481E-8B5B-A09D0A93ABC8@.microsoft.com...
> Is there an advantage (besides backup and restore) of creating multiple
> datafiles on multiple disks on one physical raid set for a large database
(>
> 200GB) ?|||Is this also true with on physical raid set with two partitions on it?
We have a HP EVA3000 with virtual raid sets. So all virtual raid 5 set are
distributed over all physical disks (so there are many spindels)
"Uri Dimant" wrote:
> Geert
> Performance for example if you query a huge table /s that are on separate
> physical discks SQL Server will create two threads to retrieve the data
> which means less I/O .
>
> "GeertVdb" <GeertVdb@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C52EB00B-A816-481E-8B5B-A09D0A93ABC8@.microsoft.com...
> > Is there an advantage (besides backup and restore) of creating multiple
> > datafiles on multiple disks on one physical raid set for a large database
> (>
> > 200GB) ?
>
>|||Hi
Well , if your database is heavy inserted I afraid a raid 5 is not good idea
,because it needs to maintain an additional disk strip.
For reading ,yes you will get performance benefit.
"geertVDB" <geertVDB@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:92F69BA3-B897-4221-83EA-F48A9EDBBEC6@.microsoft.com...
> Is this also true with on physical raid set with two partitions on it?
> We have a HP EVA3000 with virtual raid sets. So all virtual raid 5 set are
> distributed over all physical disks (so there are many spindels)
> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
> > Geert
> > Performance for example if you query a huge table /s that are on
separate
> > physical discks SQL Server will create two threads to retrieve the data
> > which means less I/O .
> >
> >
> > "GeertVdb" <GeertVdb@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:C52EB00B-A816-481E-8B5B-A09D0A93ABC8@.microsoft.com...
> > > Is there an advantage (besides backup and restore) of creating
multiple
> > > datafiles on multiple disks on one physical raid set for a large
database
> > (>
> > > 200GB) ?
> >
> >
> >|||In general, no. However, sometimes you may see a performance gain when you
have a lot of concurrent update activity in one database. This is especially
true for tempdb. More files in general means more management overhead.
Sometimes it is better to create multiple file groups for large database to
improve manageability.
--
Wei Xiao[MSFT]
SQL Server Storage Engine Development
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"GeertVdb" <GeertVdb@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C52EB00B-A816-481E-8B5B-A09D0A93ABC8@.microsoft.com...
> Is there an advantage (besides backup and restore) of creating multiple
> datafiles on multiple disks on one physical raid set for a large database
(>
> 200GB) ?

multiple datafiles- on multiple drives on One raid set

Is there an advantage (besides backup and restore) of creating multiple
datafiles on multiple disks on one physical raid set for a large database (>
200GB) ?Geert
Performance for example if you query a huge table /s that are on separate
physical discks SQL Server will create two threads to retrieve the data
which means less I/O .
"GeertVdb" <GeertVdb@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C52EB00B-A816-481E-8B5B-A09D0A93ABC8@.microsoft.com...
> Is there an advantage (besides backup and restore) of creating multiple
> datafiles on multiple disks on one physical raid set for a large database
(>
> 200GB) ?|||Is this also true with on physical raid set with two partitions on it?
We have a HP EVA3000 with virtual raid sets. So all virtual raid 5 set are
distributed over all physical disks (so there are many spindels)
"Uri Dimant" wrote:

> Geert
> Performance for example if you query a huge table /s that are on separate
> physical discks SQL Server will create two threads to retrieve the data
> which means less I/O .
>
> "GeertVdb" <GeertVdb@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C52EB00B-A816-481E-8B5B-A09D0A93ABC8@.microsoft.com...
> (>
>
>|||Hi
Well , if your database is heavy inserted I afraid a raid 5 is not good idea
,because it needs to maintain an additional disk strip.
For reading ,yes you will get performance benefit.
"geertVDB" <geertVDB@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:92F69BA3-B897-4221-83EA-F48A9EDBBEC6@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Is this also true with on physical raid set with two partitions on it?
> We have a HP EVA3000 with virtual raid sets. So all virtual raid 5 set are
> distributed over all physical disks (so there are many spindels)
> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
>
separate[vbcol=seagreen]
multiple[vbcol=seagreen]
database[vbcol=seagreen]|||In general, no. However, sometimes you may see a performance gain when you
have a lot of concurrent update activity in one database. This is especially
true for tempdb. More files in general means more management overhead.
Sometimes it is better to create multiple file groups for large database to
improve manageability.
Wei Xiao[MSFT]
SQL Server Storage Engine Development
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"GeertVdb" <GeertVdb@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C52EB00B-A816-481E-8B5B-A09D0A93ABC8@.microsoft.com...
> Is there an advantage (besides backup and restore) of creating multiple
> datafiles on multiple disks on one physical raid set for a large database
(>
> 200GB) ?