best practice for disk paritioning

Can anyone please tell me what the best practice is for SQL 2000 on a
WIndows 2003 server with regards to disk paritioning? My standard setup is
c:/d: on mirrored disk array (c is for OS, d for data) and all other data on
a SAN. What is the best way to configure sql?
What other data is there except data<g>. A logical partition does nothing
for performance if it is on the same drive array as something you are trying
to keep it away from. While C: is great for the OS and SQL Binaries you are
best to place the data and logs on the SAN.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Bad Beagle" <maxwelli@.shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:%23IbisWnzEHA.260@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Can anyone please tell me what the best practice is for SQL 2000 on a
> WIndows 2003 server with regards to disk paritioning? My standard setup
> is c:/d: on mirrored disk array (c is for OS, d for data) and all other
> data on a SAN. What is the best way to configure sql?
>

best practice for disk paritioning

Can anyone please tell me what the best practice is for SQL 2000 on a
WIndows 2003 server with regards to disk paritioning? My standard setup is
c:/d: on mirrored disk array (c is for OS, d for data) and all other data on
a SAN. What is the best way to configure sql?What other data is there except data<g>. A logical partition does nothing
for performance if it is on the same drive array as something you are trying
to keep it away from. While C: is great for the OS and SQL Binaries you are
best to place the data and logs on the SAN.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Bad Beagle" <maxwelli@.shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:%23IbisWnzEHA.260@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Can anyone please tell me what the best practice is for SQL 2000 on a
> WIndows 2003 server with regards to disk paritioning? My standard setup
> is c:/d: on mirrored disk array (c is for OS, d for data) and all other
> data on a SAN. What is the best way to configure sql?
>

best practice for disk paritioning

Can anyone please tell me what the best practice is for SQL 2000 on a
WIndows 2003 server with regards to disk paritioning? My standard setup is
c:/d: on mirrored disk array (c is for OS, d for data) and all other data on
a SAN. What is the best way to configure sql?What other data is there except data<g>. A logical partition does nothing
for performance if it is on the same drive array as something you are trying
to keep it away from. While C: is great for the OS and SQL Binaries you are
best to place the data and logs on the SAN.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Bad Beagle" <maxwelli@.shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:%23IbisWnzEHA.260@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Can anyone please tell me what the best practice is for SQL 2000 on a
> WIndows 2003 server with regards to disk paritioning? My standard setup
> is c:/d: on mirrored disk array (c is for OS, d for data) and all other
> data on a SAN. What is the best way to configure sql?
>

Best performance for SQL2000

Hi
i must configure a RAID on external storage disk array for my SQL 2000
cluster ad have think this configuration :
1- DataFile on separate RAID5 LUN
2- LogFile on another separate RAID5 LUN
3- Quorum on another separate RAID1 LUN
This configugation is good for performace (datafile e logfile separated) and
security (Quorum on Mirror) !'!
Thanks in advanceMake the Log on a RAID 1 or a 10 and not a 5. Raid 5 has too many writes
for peak performance of logs.Put the extra disks into the data raid 5 or
make it a raid 10 for better performance.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
<io.com> wrote in message news:OfbXh0YoEHA.1800@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> i must configure a RAID on external storage disk array for my SQL 2000
> cluster ad have think this configuration :
> 1- DataFile on separate RAID5 LUN
> 2- LogFile on another separate RAID5 LUN
> 3- Quorum on another separate RAID1 LUN
> This configugation is good for performace (datafile e logfile separated)
and
> security (Quorum on Mirror) !'!
> Thanks in advance
>|||Ok therefore :
datafile RAID5
logfile RAID1
quorum RAID1
it's ok ?
thanks
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:uFE6MNaoEHA.324@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Make the Log on a RAID 1 or a 10 and not a 5. Raid 5 has too many writes
> for peak performance of logs.Put the extra disks into the data raid 5 or
> make it a raid 10 for better performance.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> <io.com> wrote in message news:OfbXh0YoEHA.1800@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > Hi
> >
> > i must configure a RAID on external storage disk array for my SQL 2000
> > cluster ad have think this configuration :
> >
> > 1- DataFile on separate RAID5 LUN
> > 2- LogFile on another separate RAID5 LUN
> > 3- Quorum on another separate RAID1 LUN
> >
> > This configugation is good for performace (datafile e logfile separated)
> and
> > security (Quorum on Mirror) !'!
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> >
> >
>|||Yes
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
<io.com> wrote in message news:ORYQO1aoEHA.1608@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Ok therefore :
> datafile RAID5
> logfile RAID1
> quorum RAID1
> it's ok ?
> thanks
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:uFE6MNaoEHA.324@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > Make the Log on a RAID 1 or a 10 and not a 5. Raid 5 has too many
writes
> > for peak performance of logs.Put the extra disks into the data raid 5 or
> > make it a raid 10 for better performance.
> >
> > --
> > Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> >
> >
> > <io.com> wrote in message news:OfbXh0YoEHA.1800@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > i must configure a RAID on external storage disk array for my SQL 2000
> > > cluster ad have think this configuration :
> > >
> > > 1- DataFile on separate RAID5 LUN
> > > 2- LogFile on another separate RAID5 LUN
> > > 3- Quorum on another separate RAID1 LUN
> > >
> > > This configugation is good for performace (datafile e logfile
separated)
> > and
> > > security (Quorum on Mirror) !'!
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||Even better:
datafile RAID10
logfile RAID1
quorum RAID1
Regards
Mike
"io.com" wrote:
> Ok therefore :
> datafile RAID5
> logfile RAID1
> quorum RAID1
> it's ok ?
> thanks
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:uFE6MNaoEHA.324@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > Make the Log on a RAID 1 or a 10 and not a 5. Raid 5 has too many writes
> > for peak performance of logs.Put the extra disks into the data raid 5 or
> > make it a raid 10 for better performance.
> >
> > --
> > Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> >
> >
> > <io.com> wrote in message news:OfbXh0YoEHA.1800@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > i must configure a RAID on external storage disk array for my SQL 2000
> > > cluster ad have think this configuration :
> > >
> > > 1- DataFile on separate RAID5 LUN
> > > 2- LogFile on another separate RAID5 LUN
> > > 3- Quorum on another separate RAID1 LUN
> > >
> > > This configugation is good for performace (datafile e logfile separated)
> > and
> > > security (Quorum on Mirror) !'!
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

best install scenario

In the current MSDN Universal disk set, there is a disk for Visual Studio
2005 (beta2) and a disk for SQL Server 2005. If you install VS2005 you get
the April CTP SQL server but without Server Management Studio. If you
install SQL Server 2005, you get VS2005 but without the normal code
development templates. What's the recommended install sequence to get both?
And after several install/uninstall sequences I seem to have lost start menu
links to VS.Net 2003. Can I have VS.Net 2003 and VS.Net 2005 on the same
machine?
tks
RonHi Ron,
Since SQL Server 2005 has not been public released yet, we will redirect
all SQL Server 2005 posts to the newsgroup below
http://communities.microsoft.com/newsgroups/default.asp?icp=sqlserver2005&sl
cid=us
Thanks so much for your understanding.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Cheng
Microsoft Online Partner Support
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
=====================================================This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

best install scenario

In the current MSDN Universal disk set, there is a disk for Visual Studio
2005 (beta2) and a disk for SQL Server 2005. If you install VS2005 you get
the April CTP SQL server but without Server Management Studio. If you
install SQL Server 2005, you get VS2005 but without the normal code
development templates. What's the recommended install sequence to get both?
And after several install/uninstall sequences I seem to have lost start menu
links to VS.Net 2003. Can I have VS.Net 2003 and VS.Net 2005 on the same
machine?
tks
RonHi Ron,
Since SQL Server 2005 has not been public released yet, we will redirect
all SQL Server 2005 posts to the newsgroup below
http://communities.microsoft.com/ne...qlserver2005&sl
cid=us
Thanks so much for your understanding.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Cheng
Microsoft Online Partner Support
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
========================================
=============
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

best install scenario

In the current MSDN Universal disk set, there is a disk for Visual Studio
2005 (beta2) and a disk for SQL Server 2005. If you install VS2005 you get
the April CTP SQL server but without Server Management Studio. If you
install SQL Server 2005, you get VS2005 but without the normal code
development templates. What's the recommended install sequence to get both?
And after several install/uninstall sequences I seem to have lost start menu
links to VS.Net 2003. Can I have VS.Net 2003 and VS.Net 2005 on the same
machine?
tks
Ron
Hi Ron,
Since SQL Server 2005 has not been public released yet, we will redirect
all SQL Server 2005 posts to the newsgroup below
http://communities.microsoft.com/new...lserver2005&sl
cid=us
Thanks so much for your understanding.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Cheng
Microsoft Online Partner Support
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
================================================== ===
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

Benchmarking a server

is there a freebie utility/database that could benchmark a sqlserver?
Would like to try out different disk configurations (raid, swapfile
location, cluster size, etc) for getting the best results.

Or would I be better off writing a load script to stress the server on
a copy of my own database?

--
A)bort, R)etry, I)nfluence with large hammer.Trevor Best <bouncer@.localhost> wrote in message news:<t8113013fufan78fg8rkaj71908clb0n44@.4ax.com>...
> is there a freebie utility/database that could benchmark a sqlserver?
> Would like to try out different disk configurations (raid, swapfile
> location, cluster size, etc) for getting the best results.
> Or would I be better off writing a load script to stress the server on
> a copy of my own database?

Depending on what you want to test, this is one possible tool:

http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...9&Product=sql2k

The SQL 2000 Resource Kit has a tool called DB Hammer (or something
similar) which creates multiple client connections.

But if you want to test how fast various processes (meaning stored
procedure or application code) run, then the best test will be to use
your own test database, because then you know that you're testing
something which is meaningful for you.

Simon