Optimal Physical Layer config SQL Server on IBM xSeries 345 server

Hi all, I am building a new IBM xSeries 345 server and we plan consolidate
most of the SQL Servers databases on it (~40). I am trying to figure out the
best configuration for the disk subsystem for both reasonable performance and
disk cost savings and reduced down time. The server may have upto 6 X 73.4
GB SCSI disks. Can anyone suggest any ideas?
DISK 1 and
DISK 2 as RAID 1 â' System & Tlog
DISK 3 and
DISK 4 as RAID 1 - DATA
DISK 5 and
DISK 6 as RAID 1 â' DATA
---
DISK 1 and
DISK 2 as RAID 1 System & Tempdb
DISK 3 and
DISK 4 as RAID 1 â' Tlogs
DISK 5 and
DISK 6 as AID 1 â' DATA
---
Thanks."Ruski" <Ruski@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:493C572F-C196-4301-B2D7-4AD665B2A48C@.microsoft.com...
> Hi all, I am building a new IBM xSeries 345 server and we plan consolidate
> most of the SQL Servers databases on it (~40). I am trying to figure out
> the
> best configuration for the disk subsystem for both reasonable performance
> and
> disk cost savings and reduced down time. The server may have upto 6 X
> 73.4
> GB SCSI disks. Can anyone suggest any ideas?
> DISK 1 and
> DISK 2 as RAID 1 - System & Tlog
> DISK 3 and
> DISK 4 as RAID 1 - DATA
> DISK 5 and
> DISK 6 as RAID 1 - DATA
> ---
> DISK 1 and
> DISK 2 as RAID 1 System & Tempdb
> DISK 3 and
> DISK 4 as RAID 1 - Tlogs
> DISK 5 and
> DISK 6 as AID 1 - DATA
> ---
>
Physical optimization like this mostly involves aranging the spindles to
maximize the number of spindes used and minimize the contention for
spindles. However with 40 databases and 40 different workloads on the
server you will probably not be able to optimize the physical layout much.
BTW, I wouldn't consolodate onto the x345 if I could help it because it's a
32-bit machine. The newer x346 can run 64bit Windows and SQL Server 2005.
This will let you use much more memory, and minimize how much your workload
utilizes the disks.
David|||I second that emotion.
I'd also like to add that many writes wind up being cached and first written
into the transaction log... the point being that you could probably do all
your data on one RAID-5 array and have more actual space as a result or keep
one remaining disk as a spare.
"David Browne" <davidbaxterbrowne no potted meat@.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:O4b2YHzJGHA.1676@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
> Physical optimization like this mostly involves aranging the spindles to
> maximize the number of spindes used and minimize the contention for
> spindles. However with 40 databases and 40 different workloads on the
> server you will probably not be able to optimize the physical layout much.
>