Document Management - SQL Server 2005

I am researching a server for ProSystem fx Document Management.
System requirements break down the servers 40+ GB drive like this:
c:\ system = 10 GB
d:\ log files = 10 GB
e:\SQL DB = 15 GB
Would c, d and e be one RAID 5 array?
This is my first SQL server, so I'm learning as I go forward.
Thank you for your thoughts!First off 40GB is pretty small these days and doesn't go very far. It's hard
to say what you need without a lot more info. How much and what kind of
activity do you expect? Is it mostly reads or a lot of writes as well? You
generally want to separate your log files from your data files if you have
lots of writes or the transactions are large. But placing them all one
physical Raid drive and separating them into smaller logical drives does
nothing for performance and limits what can fit in any single partition.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Gene" <Gene@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1CCE910E-6419-472C-AA98-00B249AF4579@.microsoft.com...
>I am researching a server for ProSystem fx Document Management.
> System requirements break down the servers 40+ GB drive like this:
> c:\ system = 10 GB
> d:\ log files = 10 GB
> e:\SQL DB = 15 GB
> Would c, d and e be one RAID 5 array?
> This is my first SQL server, so I'm learning as I go forward.
> Thank you for your thoughts!
>
>
>|||Thank you, Andrew,
I really suspected that would be the case. The drive sizes I mentioned were
the minimum recommended sizes for the specific document management program
I'm researching.
Just as a hypothetical, would it be appropriate to mirror the system drive
and put the log and SQL drives each on three or more drives using RAID 5?
In other words:
c:\ system - mirrored (pagefile.sys here, as well)
d:\ log - RAID 5 (three drives+)
e:\ SQL DB - RAID 5 (three drives+)
Or is there a better approach? Obviously, I've never configured a SQL server
before but do want good performance... I'm not sure if I can answer your
read/write question at this point. Let's say 50/50.
I appreciate any direction you can offer.
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

> First off 40GB is pretty small these days and doesn't go very far. It's ha
rd
> to say what you need without a lot more info. How much and what kind of
> activity do you expect? Is it mostly reads or a lot of writes as well? Yo
u
> generally want to separate your log files from your data files if you have
> lots of writes or the transactions are large. But placing them all one
> physical Raid drive and separating them into smaller logical drives does
> nothing for performance and limits what can fit in any single partition.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Gene" <Gene@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:1CCE910E-6419-472C-AA98-00B249AF4579@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||RAID 5 has a sever penalty for writes and as such is the worst to put Log
files on. Raid 1 or 10 is great for log files. What you go with really
depends a lot on what you are going to do. 50 / 50 is a lot of writes in
relation to reads but if you only do 5 transactions a second it doesn't
matter as much as if it were 500 or 5000 a second. I would go with a Raid 1
for the OS / Swap file and a Raid 1 for the Logs. Then either a 4 disk Raid
5 or a 4 disk Raid 10 if your controller supports it. A Raid 10 will usually
outperform a comparable Raid 5 for heavy write operations.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Gene" <Gene@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8ED269A3-AAF6-4712-85D6-15A5B62C5DCB@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thank you, Andrew,
> I really suspected that would be the case. The drive sizes I mentioned
> were
> the minimum recommended sizes for the specific document management program
> I'm researching.
> Just as a hypothetical, would it be appropriate to mirror the system drive
> and put the log and SQL drives each on three or more drives using RAID 5?
> In other words:
> c:\ system - mirrored (pagefile.sys here, as well)
> d:\ log - RAID 5 (three drives+)
> e:\ SQL DB - RAID 5 (three drives+)
> Or is there a better approach? Obviously, I've never configured a SQL
> server
> before but do want good performance... I'm not sure if I can answer your
> read/write question at this point. Let's say 50/50.
> I appreciate any direction you can offer.
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>|||Thanks a bunch Andrew. That's very helpful and exactly what I need to know.
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

> RAID 5 has a sever penalty for writes and as such is the worst to put Log
> files on. Raid 1 or 10 is great for log files. What you go with really
> depends a lot on what you are going to do. 50 / 50 is a lot of writes in
> relation to reads but if you only do 5 transactions a second it doesn't
> matter as much as if it were 500 or 5000 a second. I would go with a Raid
1
> for the OS / Swap file and a Raid 1 for the Logs. Then either a 4 disk Rai
d
> 5 or a 4 disk Raid 10 if your controller supports it. A Raid 10 will usual
ly
> outperform a comparable Raid 5 for heavy write operations.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Gene" <Gene@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8ED269A3-AAF6-4712-85D6-15A5B62C5DCB@.microsoft.com...
>
>