| Author |
Message |
RAJ
Guest
|
 Posted:
Wed Apr 06, 2005 2:57 am Post subject:
Databases & Transaction logs on same spindle |
|
|
Hello,
In my now enviroment I have an Exchange 2003 Ent. edition server running on
Win2K3 Standard edition.
The person who built the server did the following:
6 drives; 2 drives mirrored w/ the OS (C:\) and 4 drives RAID 0+1 w/ the
database & transaction logs (E:\).
I'm having I/O performance issues on E:\ (Event ID 509)
I want to seperate the database files and transaction log files and I don't
want to blow away the RAID config.
I'm thinking of putting the database files on C:\ w/ the OS.
Would this be acceptable in terms of performance, stability & reliability?
Comments; suggestions...
Thank you.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Brian Desmond [MVP]
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Apr 06, 2005 7:11 am Post subject:
Re: Databases & Transaction logs on same spindle |
|
|
You'd be much better off putting th elogs on the same spindle as the OS as
that's a RAID1 mirror set b/c of the write perf. The databases can go on the
other array.
--
--Brian Desmond
Windows Server MVP
desmondb@payton.cps.k12.il.us
www.briandesmond.com
"RAJ" <RAJ@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:43AA0323-23A0-4037-8B90-C0CA0D1D5F65@microsoft.com...
| Quote: | Hello,
In my now enviroment I have an Exchange 2003 Ent. edition server running
on
Win2K3 Standard edition.
The person who built the server did the following:
6 drives; 2 drives mirrored w/ the OS (C:\) and 4 drives RAID 0+1 w/ the
database & transaction logs (E:\).
I'm having I/O performance issues on E:\ (Event ID 509)
I want to seperate the database files and transaction log files and I
don't
want to blow away the RAID config.
I'm thinking of putting the database files on C:\ w/ the OS.
Would this be acceptable in terms of performance, stability & reliability?
Comments; suggestions...
Thank you.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Schwartz
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Apr 07, 2005 5:05 am Post subject:
Re: Databases & Transaction logs on same spindle |
|
|
The I/O load of the databases is higher than the load of the transaction
logs. When calculating I/O's, the transaction logs typically take only 10%
of what the total database I/O rate is.
The transaction logs are also sequential write as apposed to random read
write of the databases. As Brian said, it is better to isolate the databases
and if you must share, share the transaction logs.
"Brian Desmond [MVP]" <desmondb@payton.cps.k12.il.us> wrote in message
news:%233FAcblOFHA.3296@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | You'd be much better off putting th elogs on the same spindle as the OS as
that's a RAID1 mirror set b/c of the write perf. The databases can go on
the other array.
--
--Brian Desmond
Windows Server MVP
desmondb@payton.cps.k12.il.us
www.briandesmond.com
"RAJ" <RAJ@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:43AA0323-23A0-4037-8B90-C0CA0D1D5F65@microsoft.com...
Hello,
In my now enviroment I have an Exchange 2003 Ent. edition server running
on
Win2K3 Standard edition.
The person who built the server did the following:
6 drives; 2 drives mirrored w/ the OS (C:\) and 4 drives RAID 0+1 w/ the
database & transaction logs (E:\).
I'm having I/O performance issues on E:\ (Event ID 509)
I want to seperate the database files and transaction log files and I
don't
want to blow away the RAID config.
I'm thinking of putting the database files on C:\ w/ the OS.
Would this be acceptable in terms of performance, stability &
reliability?
Comments; suggestions...
Thank you.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RAJ
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Apr 07, 2005 9:07 pm Post subject:
Re: Databases & Transaction logs on same spindle |
|
|
Thanks for the added info! Very helpful.
"Jim Schwartz" wrote:
| Quote: | The I/O load of the databases is higher than the load of the transaction
logs. When calculating I/O's, the transaction logs typically take only 10%
of what the total database I/O rate is.
The transaction logs are also sequential write as apposed to random read
write of the databases. As Brian said, it is better to isolate the databases
and if you must share, share the transaction logs.
"Brian Desmond [MVP]" <desmondb@payton.cps.k12.il.us> wrote in message
news:%233FAcblOFHA.3296@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
You'd be much better off putting th elogs on the same spindle as the OS as
that's a RAID1 mirror set b/c of the write perf. The databases can go on
the other array.
--
--Brian Desmond
Windows Server MVP
desmondb@payton.cps.k12.il.us
www.briandesmond.com
"RAJ" <RAJ@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:43AA0323-23A0-4037-8B90-C0CA0D1D5F65@microsoft.com...
Hello,
In my now enviroment I have an Exchange 2003 Ent. edition server running
on
Win2K3 Standard edition.
The person who built the server did the following:
6 drives; 2 drives mirrored w/ the OS (C:\) and 4 drives RAID 0+1 w/ the
database & transaction logs (E:\).
I'm having I/O performance issues on E:\ (Event ID 509)
I want to seperate the database files and transaction log files and I
don't
want to blow away the RAID config.
I'm thinking of putting the database files on C:\ w/ the OS.
Would this be acceptable in terms of performance, stability &
reliability?
Comments; suggestions...
Thank you.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in