New SQL Server Install Advice

I have a new Dell PowerEdge 2800 running windows 2003. I have 2 RAID
containers as the machine has a PERC 4 controller. The machine has x2 73GB
SCSI and x4 146GB SCSI HDD.
Container 1
--
The OS C drive (partition of 12GB) is in RAID 1 and so is E drive which has
56GB free.
Container 2
--
A D drive for Data I created and also L for Log which I assigned as dynamic
drives.
Is this setup Ok for running SQL2000. The Data files will reside in D and
the Log files will reside in L. Is this Ok for the read/write access that
occurs when SQL is accessed?
Please help.
skcI assume there is at least one processor and some memory on the server as
well.
It will work. It depends on what performance, capacity, and availability
you are needing.
"Skc" <Skc@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:46CDFADB-7AC6-4719-B0A8-8154D6977397@.microsoft.com...
>I have a new Dell PowerEdge 2800 running windows 2003. I have 2 RAID
> containers as the machine has a PERC 4 controller. The machine has x2
> 73GB
> SCSI and x4 146GB SCSI HDD.
> Container 1
> --
> The OS C drive (partition of 12GB) is in RAID 1 and so is E drive which
> has
> 56GB free.
> Container 2
> --
> A D drive for Data I created and also L for Log which I assigned as
> dynamic
> drives.
> Is this setup Ok for running SQL2000. The Data files will reside in D and
> the Log files will reside in L. Is this Ok for the read/write access that
> occurs when SQL is accessed?
> Please help.
> skc|||Xeon 2.8 x2 and 2GB RAM.
We want max. performance. Is this OK?
Furthermore, I installed SQL2000 and it came with 4 CDs:
1> SQL 2000 Standard (Personal)
2> SQL 2000 Standard
3> SP4
4> Reporting Tools
I installed Disk #1, asked me no product key, I selected 5 CALS from the
dropdown (which was how many I bought) and that was it. I have the SQL
Service running and the SQL Tools (enterprise manager). What is the
difference between the 2 Cds mentioned above?
In Enterprise Manager, when I right-click the (local) Server, it says I have
Microsoft SQL Server Std Edition installed. This is very odd, I hope I have
done this right as it did not ask for a serial product key or anything.
Please verify the above it OK.
"Danny" wrote:
> I assume there is at least one processor and some memory on the server as
> well.
> It will work. It depends on what performance, capacity, and availability
> you are needing.
> "Skc" <Skc@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:46CDFADB-7AC6-4719-B0A8-8154D6977397@.microsoft.com...
> >I have a new Dell PowerEdge 2800 running windows 2003. I have 2 RAID
> > containers as the machine has a PERC 4 controller. The machine has x2
> > 73GB
> > SCSI and x4 146GB SCSI HDD.
> >
> > Container 1
> > --
> > The OS C drive (partition of 12GB) is in RAID 1 and so is E drive which
> > has
> > 56GB free.
> >
> > Container 2
> > --
> > A D drive for Data I created and also L for Log which I assigned as
> > dynamic
> > drives.
> >
> > Is this setup Ok for running SQL2000. The Data files will reside in D and
> > the Log files will reside in L. Is this Ok for the read/write access that
> > occurs when SQL is accessed?
> >
> > Please help.
> >
> > skc
>
>

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 ha
ve
> 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 hav
e
> 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 you
r
> application write intensive. Then some combination of data on RAID 0+1 an
d
> 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 syste
m.
>
> 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
>
>

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
>
>

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...
>>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
>
>