new sql server

hi,
i was wondering is it a good idea to use sata drive as a system\mssql
drive and scsi for data ant log files?
am i right that data and log files must be on raid 10?
one more q... if i want to have 300gb data on db how much Filegroups
should i use ?
how much disk drives should i use for best performance (7 or 8 as best
performance is achieve only if even no. of drives is used)?
thanx
"benamis" <nera@.meilo.lt> wrote in message
news:OZtP$ixpFHA.3936@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> hi,
> i was wondering is it a good idea to use sata drive as a system\mssql
> drive and scsi for data ant log files?
> am i right that data and log files must be on raid 10?
> one more q... if i want to have 300gb data on db how much Filegroups
> should i use ?
> how much disk drives should i use for best performance (7 or 8 as best
> performance is achieve only if even no. of drives is used)?
> thanx
>
All of that depends!
SATA drives are find for the O/S and software. I'm not sure why you would
need those in addition to your SCSI drives. SCSI is generally going to have
double the throughput of comparable SATA drives.
As far as filegroups are concerned. Filegroups are used in two situations.
Situation 1 is to ease administration and allow for partial backups and
restores. Situation 2 is to create a poor mans RAID. If you already have
a RAID solution, then there is no reason to use filegroups to force
table-writes across multiple specific hard drives.
Now for best performance on drives. It depends? Is your application
primarily read only? If so, then a big RAID-5 would do the trick. Is your
application write intensive. Then some combination of data on RAID 0+1 and
logs on separate RAID 0+1. Do you have a single channel RAID controller or
dual channel?
All of this may be a moot point if you don't have enough RAM in your system.
Read up on performance and www.sql-server-performance.com
This should give you enough information to make better choices about your
given situation.
Rick Sawtell
MCT, MCSD, MCDBA
|||thanx lots of info
Rick Sawtell wrote:
> "benamis" <nera@.meilo.lt> wrote in message
> news:OZtP$ixpFHA.3936@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>
> All of that depends!
> SATA drives are find for the O/S and software. I'm not sure why you would
> need those in addition to your SCSI drives. SCSI is generally going to have
> double the throughput of comparable SATA drives.
> As far as filegroups are concerned. Filegroups are used in two situations.
> Situation 1 is to ease administration and allow for partial backups and
> restores. Situation 2 is to create a poor mans RAID. If you already have
> a RAID solution, then there is no reason to use filegroups to force
> table-writes across multiple specific hard drives.
> Now for best performance on drives. It depends? Is your application
> primarily read only? If so, then a big RAID-5 would do the trick. Is your
> application write intensive. Then some combination of data on RAID 0+1 and
> logs on separate RAID 0+1. Do you have a single channel RAID controller or
> dual channel?
> All of this may be a moot point if you don't have enough RAM in your system.
>
> Read up on performance and www.sql-server-performance.com
>
> This should give you enough information to make better choices about your
> given situation.
> Rick Sawtell
> MCT, MCSD, MCDBA
>
>