Does placing the transaction log on dedicated RAID volume make sense with Simple Recov

Hi,
I'm trying to get up to speed on SQL Server and data storage solutions.
I've read many posts which indicate that the transaction log should be
placed on it's own dedicated volume. I think that I understand the
rationale: Writes to the log are sequential in nature and it's
counterproductive to have random I/O to the database interfere with these
sequential log writes.
Does this logic still hold true when using the Simple recovery model?
I've read a bit about this model and the documentation states that when
operating under the rules of this model, SQL Server will truncate the log
after each transaction. Doesn't this imply that writing to the log would NOT
be sequential in nature since each write begins at position x, the write
takes place, and then the drive must return to position x again for the next
write? Or is this protocol still considered a sequential write and should
therefore be isolated on a dedicated volume?
Thanks,
DavidLarry,
It holds for simple recovery mode as well. SQL Server doesn't truncate the l
og after each
transaction. It truncates after each time it performs a checkpoint (read abo
ut checkpoint in Books
Online).
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
http://www.sqlug.se/
"Larry David" <invalid@.bogus.bum> wrote in message news:CsudnU16LPcHoqrfRVn-hA@.giganews.com.
.
> Hi,
> I'm trying to get up to speed on SQL Server and data storage solutions.
> I've read many posts which indicate that the transaction log should be
> placed on it's own dedicated volume. I think that I understand the
> rationale: Writes to the log are sequential in nature and it's
> counterproductive to have random I/O to the database interfere with these
> sequential log writes.
> Does this logic still hold true when using the Simple recovery model?
> I've read a bit about this model and the documentation states that when
> operating under the rules of this model, SQL Server will truncate the log
> after each transaction. Doesn't this imply that writing to the log would N
OT
> be sequential in nature since each write begins at position x, the write
> takes place, and then the drive must return to position x again for the ne
xt
> write? Or is this protocol still considered a sequential write and should
> therefore be isolated on a dedicated volume?
> Thanks,
> David
>
>