Ask for Recomendation

Dear All,
Pls take a look at the attached picture.
Drive E, F and G -> Raid 5
Drive C and D -> Simple Partition
My Question:
1. Where should to place the MDF dan LDF file?
2. Is it necessary to have multiple filegroup since I use RAID5?
Thanks
Robert LieIf you are heading for performance and not safety there is a simple rule
Raid 5 bad, Raid 10 good.
But now your stuck in, i would lay them on separate disk (There is not much
place there left, based on the value of the picture, and you didnt give any
db value,so you have to decide it.)
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
--
"Robert Lie" <robert.lie24@.gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:OBB%23J58SFHA.1040@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Dear All,
> Pls take a look at the attached picture.
> Drive E, F and G -> Raid 5
> Drive C and D -> Simple Partition
> My Question:
> 1. Where should to place the MDF dan LDF file?
> 2. Is it necessary to have multiple filegroup since I use RAID5?
> Thanks
> Robert Lie
>|||Robert
If your goal is performance you should place.MDF and .LDF files on different
physical disk
As Jens has mentioned RAID-5 is 'bad' for writes and 'good' for reads. You
will have to determine whether your OLTP is heavily writing or reading and
then to make a decision
It would be good if you place your LOG file on mirrored disk array RAID-1&0
because the write activity tends to be sequential and is synchronous.
"Robert Lie" <robert.lie24@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OBB%23J58SFHA.1040@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Dear All,
> Pls take a look at the attached picture.
> Drive E, F and G -> Raid 5
> Drive C and D -> Simple Partition
> My Question:
> 1. Where should to place the MDF dan LDF file?
> 2. Is it necessary to have multiple filegroup since I use RAID5?
> Thanks
> Robert Lie
>

Ask for Recomendation

Dear All,
Pls take a look at the attached picture.
Drive E, F and G -> Raid 5
Drive C and D -> Simple Partition
My Question:
1. Where should to place the MDF dan LDF file?
2. Is it necessary to have multiple filegroup since I use RAID5?
Thanks
Robert Lie
If you are heading for performance and not safety there is a simple rule
Raid 5 bad, Raid 10 good.
But now your stuck in, i would lay them on separate disk (There is not much
place there left, based on the value of the picture, and you didnt give any
db value,so you have to decide it.)
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
"Robert Lie" <robert.lie24@.gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:OBB%23J58SFHA.1040@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Dear All,
> Pls take a look at the attached picture.
> Drive E, F and G -> Raid 5
> Drive C and D -> Simple Partition
> My Question:
> 1. Where should to place the MDF dan LDF file?
> 2. Is it necessary to have multiple filegroup since I use RAID5?
> Thanks
> Robert Lie
>
|||Robert
If your goal is performance you should place.MDF and .LDF files on different
physical disk
As Jens has mentioned RAID-5 is 'bad' for writes and 'good' for reads. You
will have to determine whether your OLTP is heavily writing or reading and
then to make a decision
It would be good if you place your LOG file on mirrored disk array RAID-1&0
because the write activity tends to be sequential and is synchronous.
"Robert Lie" <robert.lie24@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OBB%23J58SFHA.1040@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Dear All,
> Pls take a look at the attached picture.
> Drive E, F and G -> Raid 5
> Drive C and D -> Simple Partition
> My Question:
> 1. Where should to place the MDF dan LDF file?
> 2. Is it necessary to have multiple filegroup since I use RAID5?
> Thanks
> Robert Lie
>

Ask for Best Server Configuration

Dear All,
This is my SQL Server 2000 hardware Configuration:
-RAID 5
-4 HD, each 20 GB
* 1 HD for Drive C
* 3 HD for Raid5 with Fault Tolerance 20 GB
I have OLTP Database that has been running for 1.5 years. In the
database, there is a heavily accessed table that contain more than 1
million rows with several non-cluster indexes belonging to that table.
My question are:
-Is it neccessary to place log files and data files on distinct drive?
Why?
-Is it neccessary to place heavily accessed table and non-cluster
indexes belonging to that table on difference filegroups? And How'
Thanks
Robert LieSee Inline responses:

> -Is it neccessary to place log files and data files on distinct drive?
> Why?
Necessary, No....A good Idea, Yes.
By segregating specific IO Tasks to different logical drives, you redue IO
Saturation (allowing multiple disks, controllers, etc to work
simultaneously).

> -Is it neccessary to place heavily accessed table and non-cluster indexes
> belonging to that table on difference filegroups? And How'
Again, NOT Necessary, but often a good idea.
You would use the "ON [FILEGROUP]" clause in your DDL Commands
Greg Jackson
PDX, Oregon|||Robert Lie wrote:
> Dear All,
> This is my SQL Server 2000 hardware Configuration:
> -RAID 5
> -4 HD, each 20 GB
> * 1 HD for Drive C
> * 3 HD for Raid5 with Fault Tolerance 20 GB
>
> I have OLTP Database that has been running for 1.5 years. In the
> database, there is a heavily accessed table that contain more than 1
> million rows with several non-cluster indexes belonging to that table.
> My question are:
> -Is it neccessary to place log files and data files on distinct drive?
> Why?
It helps, especially for an OLTP system. RAID 5 is the worst performing
raid option for writing. When you consider that log files and tempdb
deal primarily with writing, further burdeoning the data drive doesn't
make sense. It would probably be better for your system to use a
mirrored array instead of a raid 5 array w/ 3 HDs for the log. You
really need to mirror the OS drive as well. You lose that drive and your
entire server is down for days.

> -Is it neccessary to place heavily accessed table and non-cluster
> indexes belonging to that table on difference filegroups? And How'
You don't have that option really given your current design. If you
think about writing to a table and to an index, you can get better
performance if those objects are on two different arrays because they
can be written to simultaneously. There is a filegroup option when
creating the index that determines its data file location.
I might consider making your main data raid 5 array 5 disks, use a
mirrored array for the logs and tempdb, and add a drive to mirror the
OS.
OTOH, if you're not having any performance or capacity issues, then you
might want to leave the design as is.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com|||Ok Thanks fo your sugestion.
Do you know any web site that explain about RAID on Windows 2000 Server
in more detail?
Thanks
David Gugick wrote:
> Robert Lie wrote:
>
>
> It helps, especially for an OLTP system. RAID 5 is the worst performing
> raid option for writing. When you consider that log files and tempdb
> deal primarily with writing, further burdeoning the data drive doesn't
> make sense. It would probably be better for your system to use a
> mirrored array instead of a raid 5 array w/ 3 HDs for the log. You
> really need to mirror the OS drive as well. You lose that drive and your
> entire server is down for days.
>
>
> You don't have that option really given your current design. If you
> think about writing to a table and to an index, you can get better
> performance if those objects are on two different arrays because they
> can be written to simultaneously. There is a filegroup option when
> creating the index that determines its data file location.
> I might consider making your main data raid 5 array 5 disks, use a
> mirrored array for the logs and tempdb, and add a drive to mirror the OS.
> OTOH, if you're not having any performance or capacity issues, then you
> might want to leave the design as is.
>|||Robert Lie wrote:
> Ok Thanks fo your sugestion.
> Do you know any web site that explain about RAID on Windows 2000
> Server in more detail?
>
RAID is a harware implementation, separate from the OS. There is a web
site that advocates not to use RAID 5, but I don't remember the address.
See if SQLServerPerformance.com has some answers.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com|||Hello Robert,
Performance Tuning Guide from MS press shud be a good start.
Create the objects on that filegroup. If the table has a Clustered Index,
drop and recreate the Clustered Index on the desired File Group.
[Is it neccessary to place heavily accessed table and non-cluster
indexes belonging to that table on difference filegroups? And How']
Log file is write intensive - "Sequentially". It is best kept on its own
drive (RAID 1)
[Is it neccessary to place log files and data files on distinct drive? >
Why?]
Are all the Indexes being used. Sometimes, we create Indexes and over a
period of time
we loose track of its usage and as a consequence this reduces the
performance during
writes with respect to any unused Index.
[with several non-cluster indexes belonging to that table.]
Gopi
"Robert Lie" <robert.lie24@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23$Nv$csSFHA.580@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Dear All,
> This is my SQL Server 2000 hardware Configuration:
> -RAID 5
> -4 HD, each 20 GB
> * 1 HD for Drive C
> * 3 HD for Raid5 with Fault Tolerance 20 GB
>
> I have OLTP Database that has been running for 1.5 years. In the database,
> there is a heavily accessed table that contain more than 1 million rows
> with several non-cluster indexes belonging to that table.
> My question are:
> -Is it neccessary to place log files and data files on distinct drive?
> Why?
> -Is it neccessary to place heavily accessed table and non-cluster indexes
> belonging to that table on difference filegroups? And How'
> Thanks
> Robert Lie|||Try to google for RAID - that will give you a number of hits. You can also
start with this one http://www.acnc.com/raid.html that gives you a brief
introduction to the various RAID types.
Regards
Steen
Robert Lie wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Ok Thanks fo your sugestion.
> Do you know any web site that explain about RAID on Windows 2000
> Server in more detail?
> Thanks
>
> David Gugick wrote:

Ask for Best Server Configuration

Dear All,
This is my SQL Server 2000 Hardware Configuration:
-RAID 5
-4 HD, each 20 GB
* 1 HD for Drive C
* 3 HD for Raid5 with Fault Tolerance 20 GB
I have OLTP Database that has been running for 1.5 years. In the
database, there is a heavily accessed table that contain more than 1
million rows with several non-cluster indexes belonging to that table.
My question are:
-Is it neccessary to place log files and data files on distinct drive?
Why?
-Is it neccessary to place heavily accessed table and non-cluster
indexes belonging to that table on difference filegroups? And How'
Thanks
Robert LieSee Inline responses:
> -Is it neccessary to place log files and data files on distinct drive?
> Why?
Necessary, No....A good Idea, Yes.
By segregating specific IO Tasks to different logical drives, you redue IO
Saturation (allowing multiple disks, controllers, etc to work
simultaneously).
> -Is it neccessary to place heavily accessed table and non-cluster indexes
> belonging to that table on difference filegroups? And How'
Again, NOT Necessary, but often a good idea.
You would use the "ON [FILEGROUP]" clause in your DDL Commands
Greg Jackson
PDX, Oregon|||Robert Lie wrote:
> Dear All,
> This is my SQL Server 2000 Hardware Configuration:
> -RAID 5
> -4 HD, each 20 GB
> * 1 HD for Drive C
> * 3 HD for Raid5 with Fault Tolerance 20 GB
>
> I have OLTP Database that has been running for 1.5 years. In the
> database, there is a heavily accessed table that contain more than 1
> million rows with several non-cluster indexes belonging to that table.
> My question are:
> -Is it neccessary to place log files and data files on distinct drive?
> Why?
It helps, especially for an OLTP system. RAID 5 is the worst performing
raid option for writing. When you consider that log files and tempdb
deal primarily with writing, further burdeoning the data drive doesn't
make sense. It would probably be better for your system to use a
mirrored array instead of a raid 5 array w/ 3 HDs for the log. You
really need to mirror the OS drive as well. You lose that drive and your
entire server is down for days.
> -Is it neccessary to place heavily accessed table and non-cluster
> indexes belonging to that table on difference filegroups? And How'
You don't have that option really given your current design. If you
think about writing to a table and to an index, you can get better
performance if those objects are on two different arrays because they
can be written to simultaneously. There is a filegroup option when
creating the index that determines its data file location.
I might consider making your main data raid 5 array 5 disks, use a
mirrored array for the logs and tempdb, and add a drive to mirror the
OS.
OTOH, if you're not having any performance or capacity issues, then you
might want to leave the design as is.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com|||Ok Thanks fo your sugestion.
Do you know any web site that explain about RAID on Windows 2000 Server
in more detail?
Thanks
David Gugick wrote:
> Robert Lie wrote:
>> Dear All,
>> This is my SQL Server 2000 Hardware Configuration:
>> -RAID 5
>> -4 HD, each 20 GB
>> * 1 HD for Drive C
>> * 3 HD for Raid5 with Fault Tolerance 20 GB
>>
>> I have OLTP Database that has been running for 1.5 years. In the
>> database, there is a heavily accessed table that contain more than 1
>> million rows with several non-cluster indexes belonging to that table.
>> My question are:
>> -Is it neccessary to place log files and data files on distinct drive?
>> Why?
>
> It helps, especially for an OLTP system. RAID 5 is the worst performing
> raid option for writing. When you consider that log files and tempdb
> deal primarily with writing, further burdeoning the data drive doesn't
> make sense. It would probably be better for your system to use a
> mirrored array instead of a raid 5 array w/ 3 HDs for the log. You
> really need to mirror the OS drive as well. You lose that drive and your
> entire server is down for days.
>> -Is it neccessary to place heavily accessed table and non-cluster
>> indexes belonging to that table on difference filegroups? And How'
>
> You don't have that option really given your current design. If you
> think about writing to a table and to an index, you can get better
> performance if those objects are on two different arrays because they
> can be written to simultaneously. There is a filegroup option when
> creating the index that determines its data file location.
> I might consider making your main data raid 5 array 5 disks, use a
> mirrored array for the logs and tempdb, and add a drive to mirror the OS.
> OTOH, if you're not having any performance or capacity issues, then you
> might want to leave the design as is.
>|||Robert Lie wrote:
> Ok Thanks fo your sugestion.
> Do you know any web site that explain about RAID on Windows 2000
> Server in more detail?
>
RAID is a harware implementation, separate from the OS. There is a web
site that advocates not to use RAID 5, but I don't remember the address.
See if SQLServerPerformance.com has some answers.
--
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com|||Hello Robert,
Performance Tuning Guide from MS press shud be a good start.
Create the objects on that filegroup. If the table has a Clustered Index,
drop and recreate the Clustered Index on the desired File Group.
[Is it neccessary to place heavily accessed table and non-cluster
indexes belonging to that table on difference filegroups? And How']
Log file is write intensive - "Sequentially". It is best kept on its own
drive (RAID 1)
[Is it neccessary to place log files and data files on distinct drive? >
Why?]
Are all the Indexes being used. Sometimes, we create Indexes and over a
period of time
we loose track of its usage and as a consequence this reduces the
performance during
writes with respect to any unused Index.
[with several non-cluster indexes belonging to that table.]
Gopi
"Robert Lie" <robert.lie24@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23$Nv$csSFHA.580@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Dear All,
> This is my SQL Server 2000 Hardware Configuration:
> -RAID 5
> -4 HD, each 20 GB
> * 1 HD for Drive C
> * 3 HD for Raid5 with Fault Tolerance 20 GB
>
> I have OLTP Database that has been running for 1.5 years. In the database,
> there is a heavily accessed table that contain more than 1 million rows
> with several non-cluster indexes belonging to that table.
> My question are:
> -Is it neccessary to place log files and data files on distinct drive?
> Why?
> -Is it neccessary to place heavily accessed table and non-cluster indexes
> belonging to that table on difference filegroups? And How'
> Thanks
> Robert Lie|||Try to google for RAID - that will give you a number of hits. You can also
start with this one http://www.acnc.com/raid.html that gives you a brief
introduction to the various RAID types.
Regards
Steen
Robert Lie wrote:
> Ok Thanks fo your sugestion.
> Do you know any web site that explain about RAID on Windows 2000
> Server in more detail?
> Thanks
>
> David Gugick wrote:
>> Robert Lie wrote:
>> Dear All,
>> This is my SQL Server 2000 Hardware Configuration:
>> -RAID 5
>> -4 HD, each 20 GB
>> * 1 HD for Drive C
>> * 3 HD for Raid5 with Fault Tolerance 20 GB
>>
>> I have OLTP Database that has been running for 1.5 years. In the
>> database, there is a heavily accessed table that contain more than 1
>> million rows with several non-cluster indexes belonging to that
>> table. My question are:
>> -Is it neccessary to place log files and data files on distinct
>> drive? Why?
>>
>> It helps, especially for an OLTP system. RAID 5 is the worst
>> performing raid option for writing. When you consider that log files
>> and tempdb deal primarily with writing, further burdeoning the data
>> drive doesn't make sense. It would probably be better for your
>> system to use a mirrored array instead of a raid 5 array w/ 3 HDs
>> for the log. You really need to mirror the OS drive as well. You
>> lose that drive and your entire server is down for days.
>> -Is it neccessary to place heavily accessed table and non-cluster
>> indexes belonging to that table on difference filegroups? And How'
>>
>> You don't have that option really given your current design. If you
>> think about writing to a table and to an index, you can get better
>> performance if those objects are on two different arrays because they
>> can be written to simultaneously. There is a filegroup option when
>> creating the index that determines its data file location.
>> I might consider making your main data raid 5 array 5 disks, use a
>> mirrored array for the logs and tempdb, and add a drive to mirror
>> the OS.
>> OTOH, if you're not having any performance or capacity issues, then
>> you might want to leave the design as is.

Ask for Best Server Configuration

Dear All,
This is my SQL Server 2000 Hardware Configuration:
-RAID 5
-4 HD, each 20 GB
* 1 HD for Drive C
* 3 HD for Raid5 with Fault Tolerance 20 GB
I have OLTP Database that has been running for 1.5 years. In the
database, there is a heavily accessed table that contain more than 1
million rows with several non-cluster indexes belonging to that table.
My question are:
-Is it neccessary to place log files and data files on distinct drive?
Why?
-Is it neccessary to place heavily accessed table and non-cluster
indexes belonging to that table on difference filegroups? And How?
Thanks
Robert Lie
See Inline responses:

> -Is it neccessary to place log files and data files on distinct drive?
> Why?
Necessary, No....A good Idea, Yes.
By segregating specific IO Tasks to different logical drives, you redue IO
Saturation (allowing multiple disks, controllers, etc to work
simultaneously).

> -Is it neccessary to place heavily accessed table and non-cluster indexes
> belonging to that table on difference filegroups? And How?
Again, NOT Necessary, but often a good idea.
You would use the "ON [FILEGROUP]" clause in your DDL Commands
Greg Jackson
PDX, Oregon
|||Robert Lie wrote:
> Dear All,
> This is my SQL Server 2000 Hardware Configuration:
> -RAID 5
> -4 HD, each 20 GB
> * 1 HD for Drive C
> * 3 HD for Raid5 with Fault Tolerance 20 GB
>
> I have OLTP Database that has been running for 1.5 years. In the
> database, there is a heavily accessed table that contain more than 1
> million rows with several non-cluster indexes belonging to that table.
> My question are:
> -Is it neccessary to place log files and data files on distinct drive?
> Why?
It helps, especially for an OLTP system. RAID 5 is the worst performing
raid option for writing. When you consider that log files and tempdb
deal primarily with writing, further burdeoning the data drive doesn't
make sense. It would probably be better for your system to use a
mirrored array instead of a raid 5 array w/ 3 HDs for the log. You
really need to mirror the OS drive as well. You lose that drive and your
entire server is down for days.

> -Is it neccessary to place heavily accessed table and non-cluster
> indexes belonging to that table on difference filegroups? And How?
You don't have that option really given your current design. If you
think about writing to a table and to an index, you can get better
performance if those objects are on two different arrays because they
can be written to simultaneously. There is a filegroup option when
creating the index that determines its data file location.
I might consider making your main data raid 5 array 5 disks, use a
mirrored array for the logs and tempdb, and add a drive to mirror the
OS.
OTOH, if you're not having any performance or capacity issues, then you
might want to leave the design as is.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com
|||Ok Thanks fo your sugestion.
Do you know any web site that explain about RAID on Windows 2000 Server
in more detail?
Thanks
David Gugick wrote:
> Robert Lie wrote:
>
> It helps, especially for an OLTP system. RAID 5 is the worst performing
> raid option for writing. When you consider that log files and tempdb
> deal primarily with writing, further burdeoning the data drive doesn't
> make sense. It would probably be better for your system to use a
> mirrored array instead of a raid 5 array w/ 3 HDs for the log. You
> really need to mirror the OS drive as well. You lose that drive and your
> entire server is down for days.
>
> You don't have that option really given your current design. If you
> think about writing to a table and to an index, you can get better
> performance if those objects are on two different arrays because they
> can be written to simultaneously. There is a filegroup option when
> creating the index that determines its data file location.
> I might consider making your main data raid 5 array 5 disks, use a
> mirrored array for the logs and tempdb, and add a drive to mirror the OS.
> OTOH, if you're not having any performance or capacity issues, then you
> might want to leave the design as is.
>
|||Robert Lie wrote:
> Ok Thanks fo your sugestion.
> Do you know any web site that explain about RAID on Windows 2000
> Server in more detail?
>
RAID is a harware implementation, separate from the OS. There is a web
site that advocates not to use RAID 5, but I don't remember the address.
See if SQLServerPerformance.com has some answers.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com
|||Hello Robert,
Performance Tuning Guide from MS press shud be a good start.
Create the objects on that filegroup. If the table has a Clustered Index,
drop and recreate the Clustered Index on the desired File Group.
[Is it neccessary to place heavily accessed table and non-cluster
indexes belonging to that table on difference filegroups? And How?]
Log file is write intensive - "Sequentially". It is best kept on its own
drive (RAID 1)
[Is it neccessary to place log files and data files on distinct drive? >
Why?]
Are all the Indexes being used. Sometimes, we create Indexes and over a
period of time
we loose track of its usage and as a consequence this reduces the
performance during
writes with respect to any unused Index.
[with several non-cluster indexes belonging to that table.]
Gopi
"Robert Lie" <robert.lie24@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23$Nv$csSFHA.580@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Dear All,
> This is my SQL Server 2000 Hardware Configuration:
> -RAID 5
> -4 HD, each 20 GB
> * 1 HD for Drive C
> * 3 HD for Raid5 with Fault Tolerance 20 GB
>
> I have OLTP Database that has been running for 1.5 years. In the database,
> there is a heavily accessed table that contain more than 1 million rows
> with several non-cluster indexes belonging to that table.
> My question are:
> -Is it neccessary to place log files and data files on distinct drive?
> Why?
> -Is it neccessary to place heavily accessed table and non-cluster indexes
> belonging to that table on difference filegroups? And How?
> Thanks
> Robert Lie
|||Try to google for RAID - that will give you a number of hits. You can also
start with this one http://www.acnc.com/raid.html that gives you a brief
introduction to the various RAID types.
Regards
Steen
Robert Lie wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Ok Thanks fo your sugestion.
> Do you know any web site that explain about RAID on Windows 2000
> Server in more detail?
> Thanks
>
> David Gugick wrote:

Are there any issues with installing SQL 05 on dual boot system - D drive?

I want to setup VS 2005 and sql server 2005 on a dual boot system and it
will be using the d drive. does anyone know of any issues regarding this
type of setup?
Thanks.
moondaddy@.nospam.nospamHi Moondaddy,
Do you mean, for example, that you have Windows XP and Windows Server 2003
on the same machine and you want to install VS2005 and SQL2005 on the D
drive for both these two system to limit the used disk space?
If so, I am afraid this is not a supported way doing so, the register keys
might go wrong for both systems. We may also check whether other
communities has the same experience below
Thank you for your patience and cooperation. If you have any questions or
concerns, don't hesitate to let me know. We are always here to be of
assistance!
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.|||I will be running winxp pro on both drives. its just that I use the c drive
as a clean test machine for testing installs. when I'm done with the test,
I restore it from a ghost. I had an extra d drive I wanted to use as a 2nd
boot drive also running winxp. I wanted to run VS 2005 Team Architect, sql
2005 and WinFX as an alternate dev machine as I can't take a chance on
messing up my current dev machine where I'm running VS 2005 and SQL Server
2000 and reporting services. I can't take a chance on anything going wrong
on this main machine.
so back to the original question, would there be any issues running VS 2005
Team Architect, sql 2005 and WinFX on the d drive as the 2nd boot drive in a
dual boot system?
moondaddy@.nospam.nospam
"Michael Cheng [MSFT]" <v-mingqc@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7jhCANBHGHA.3696@.TK2MSFTNGXA02.phx.gbl...
> Hi Moondaddy,
> Do you mean, for example, that you have Windows XP and Windows Server 2003
> on the same machine and you want to install VS2005 and SQL2005 on the D
> drive for both these two system to limit the used disk space?
> If so, I am afraid this is not a supported way doing so, the register keys
> might go wrong for both systems. We may also check whether other
> communities has the same experience below
> Thank you for your patience and cooperation. If you have any questions or
> concerns, don't hesitate to let me know. We are always here to be of
> assistance!
>
> 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.
>|||Hi Moondaddy,
Thanks for your clarification!
For now, I have searched internal knowledge bases and do not find any
articles talking about doing so. I am sorry to say but we do not support
such kind of installation offcially.
Thank you for your patience and cooperation.
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.

Are multiple transaction logs used concurrently or sequentially?

It'd be nice to have redundant transaction logs, maybe even one on a
mapped drive, but I read in one post here that SQL Server considers
all transaction logs to be one big log file. Is this true?
Is there any way to have redundant transaction logs without mirroring>
Hi,
No, SQL Server allows to create multiple Transaction logs for a database.
Eg: from books online:-
USE master
GO
CREATE DATABASE Archive
ON
PRIMARY ( NAME = Arch1,
FILENAME = 'c:\program files\microsoft sql
server\mssql\data\archdat1.mdf',
SIZE = 100MB,
MAXSIZE = 200,
FILEGROWTH = 20),
( NAME = Arch2,
FILENAME = 'c:\program files\microsoft sql
server\mssql\data\archdat2.ndf',
SIZE = 100MB,
MAXSIZE = 200,
FILEGROWTH = 20),
( NAME = Arch3,
FILENAME = 'c:\program files\microsoft sql
server\mssql\data\archdat3.ndf',
SIZE = 100MB,
MAXSIZE = 200,
FILEGROWTH = 20)
LOG ON
( NAME = Archlog1,
FILENAME = 'c:\program files\microsoft sql
server\mssql\data\archlog1.ldf',
SIZE = 100MB,
MAXSIZE = 200,
FILEGROWTH = 20),
( NAME = Archlog2,
FILENAME = 'c:\program files\microsoft sql
server\mssql\data\archlog2.ldf',
SIZE = 100MB,
MAXSIZE = 200,
FILEGROWTH = 20)
GO
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"fumanchu" <leondobr@.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:rjvtn0tjdv3afv74bv33t3k9ueng4fg7ml@.4ax.com...
> It'd be nice to have redundant transaction logs, maybe even one on a
> mapped drive, but I read in one post here that SQL Server considers
> all transaction logs to be one big log file. Is this true?
> Is there any way to have redundant transaction logs without mirroring>
|||On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:03:37 -0500, "Hari Prasad"
<hari_prasad_k@.hotmail.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>No, SQL Server allows to create multiple Transaction logs for a database.
>
I understand that you can have multiple transaction logs, but are they
concurrent, that is, interchangeable copies of one another, or are
they used one after another as continuation files?
|||Hi,
They are interchangable.Check out the section "Transaction Log Physical
Architecture" in the SQL
Server Books Online.
Thanks
Hari
"fumanchu" <leondobr@.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ii1un0h1o0tnk7s3ndmb66oc8v3nv7jb2j@.4ax.com...
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:03:37 -0500, "Hari Prasad"
> <hari_prasad_k@.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I understand that you can have multiple transaction logs, but are they
> concurrent, that is, interchangeable copies of one another, or are
> they used one after another as continuation files?
|||The logs are all in use, you would use multiple logs across multiple RAID
sets to gain better performance, say you had 3 log files, data would be
striped across all 3.
I sort of see what you might want to do what you ask, you could achieve this
by doing log shipping, but, the interval between log dumps would be your
potentially non-recovery window.
You could also look at clustering.
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://www.sqlserverfaq.com?mbr=21
(Create your own groups, Forum, FAQ's and a ton more)
|||The way the SQL Logs work is sequential... Even if you have 5 logs, SQL is
only using one at a time, writing serially to the end of the file... So
having multiple files does not improve performance.
Mirroring is probably the best way to get redundancy on the logs, and it is
a best practice that I suspect most people follow.
There is some file mirroring software out there ( I can't remember the
company ) that keeps files in sync real-time, and they claim this works with
SQL as well...
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"fumanchu" <leondobr@.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:rjvtn0tjdv3afv74bv33t3k9ueng4fg7ml@.4ax.com...
> It'd be nice to have redundant transaction logs, maybe even one on a
> mapped drive, but I read in one post here that SQL Server considers
> all transaction logs to be one big log file. Is this true?
> Is there any way to have redundant transaction logs without mirroring>
|||Hi Wayne,
If the database has multiple logs they are written to (striped) at the same
time - so, if you put them on the same logical disk they will grow together.
For example, if you create a database (see below) with 2 log files and write
a big table onto it, both log files will grow together, in my own test here
they both ended up 39MB.
The biggest problem here is that its striping (essentially RAID 0) so no
fault tolerance, if you put the logs on seperate drives and one goes then
you lose the log.
CREATE DATABASE testlog
ON PRIMARY
( NAME = testdb1,
FILENAME = N'e:\testlog1.mdf',
SIZE = 10MB,
MAXSIZE = 200MB,
FILEGROWTH = 10%)
LOG ON
( NAME = testlog1,
FILENAME = N'h:\testlog1.ldf',
SIZE = 512KB,
MAXSIZE = 200MB,
FILEGROWTH = 10%),
( NAME = testlog2,
FILENAME = N'h:\testlog2.ldf',
SIZE = 512KB,
MAXSIZE = 200MB,
FILEGROWTH = 10%)
GO
Tony.
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://www.sqlserverfaq.com?mbr=21
(Create your own groups, Forum, FAQ's and a ton more)
|||Tony,
I think the question is about performance, and I have a feeling that SQL Server will not write
concurrently to these log files. AFAIK, SQL Server will grow one file (with z number of VLF's) fill
that, then grow the other file and fill that etc. I don't know HW enough to determine whether we
still could gain anything by having multiple log files, but assuming a simple install with one log
file per physical disk, I would assume that only one disk would be hit at a time.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Tony Rogerson" <tonyrogerson@.sqlserver.eu.com> wrote in message
news:ezYBooCvEHA.568@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi Wayne,
> If the database has multiple logs they are written to (striped) at the same time - so, if you put
> them on the same logical disk they will grow together.
> For example, if you create a database (see below) with 2 log files and write a big table onto it,
> both log files will grow together, in my own test here they both ended up 39MB.
> The biggest problem here is that its striping (essentially RAID 0) so no fault tolerance, if you
> put the logs on seperate drives and one goes then you lose the log.
> CREATE DATABASE testlog
> ON PRIMARY
> ( NAME = testdb1,
> FILENAME = N'e:\testlog1.mdf',
> SIZE = 10MB,
> MAXSIZE = 200MB,
> FILEGROWTH = 10%)
> LOG ON
> ( NAME = testlog1,
> FILENAME = N'h:\testlog1.ldf',
> SIZE = 512KB,
> MAXSIZE = 200MB,
> FILEGROWTH = 10%),
> ( NAME = testlog2,
> FILENAME = N'h:\testlog2.ldf',
> SIZE = 512KB,
> MAXSIZE = 200MB,
> FILEGROWTH = 10%)
> GO
> Tony.
> --
> Tony Rogerson
> SQL Server MVP
> http://www.sqlserverfaq.com?mbr=21
> (Create your own groups, Forum, FAQ's and a ton more)
>
|||Hi Tibor,
Nope - try the example, SQL Server stripes across the 2 log files! It does
the same for multiple data files in a file group as well.
Create a database using the create db below and do something like this (from
a big table in another db)...
select *
into mytest
from yourotherdb..bigtable
where 1 = 0
go
insert mytest
select *
from yourotherdb..bigtable
Observe that the two log files end up the same size, in fact, watch them
grow - they grow at the same rate.
When multiple log (or data files) for a single db are placed on different
logical disks, the proportion of data striped to each file is dependant on
how much free space there is on the drives where they reside.
CREATE DATABASE testlog
ON PRIMARY
( NAME = testdb1,
FILENAME = N'e:\testlog1.mdf',
SIZE = 10MB,
MAXSIZE = 200MB,
FILEGROWTH = 10%)
LOG ON
( NAME = testlog1,
FILENAME = N'h:\testlog1.ldf',
SIZE = 512KB,
MAXSIZE = 200MB,
FILEGROWTH = 10%),
( NAME = testlog2,
FILENAME = N'h:\testlog2.ldf',
SIZE = 512KB,
MAXSIZE = 200MB,
FILEGROWTH = 10%)
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://www.sqlserverfaq.com?mbr=21
(Create your own groups, Forum, FAQ's and a ton more)
|||Hi Tony
I think we're not talking about growing the physical files, but how existing
log files are filled. Your script shows that once the log files have reached
their initially created size, then new space is allocated for each of them
in a striped fashion.
But, if you change your script to initially create your log files with some
reasonable size, and then use dbcc loginfo to examine them as the insert is
taking place, you will see that one of them gets filled completely before
the other one starts to be filled.
HTH
Kalen Delaney
SQL Server MVP
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
"Tony Rogerson" <tonyrogerson@.sqlserver.eu.com> wrote in message
news:%23YSfShEvEHA.2540@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi Tibor,
> Nope - try the example, SQL Server stripes across the 2 log files! It does
> the same for multiple data files in a file group as well.
> Create a database using the create db below and do something like this
> (from a big table in another db)...
> select *
> into mytest
> from yourotherdb..bigtable
> where 1 = 0
> go
> insert mytest
> select *
> from yourotherdb..bigtable
> Observe that the two log files end up the same size, in fact, watch them
> grow - they grow at the same rate.
> When multiple log (or data files) for a single db are placed on different
> logical disks, the proportion of data striped to each file is dependant on
> how much free space there is on the drives where they reside.
> CREATE DATABASE testlog
> ON PRIMARY
> ( NAME = testdb1,
> FILENAME = N'e:\testlog1.mdf',
> SIZE = 10MB,
> MAXSIZE = 200MB,
> FILEGROWTH = 10%)
> LOG ON
> ( NAME = testlog1,
> FILENAME = N'h:\testlog1.ldf',
> SIZE = 512KB,
> MAXSIZE = 200MB,
> FILEGROWTH = 10%),
> ( NAME = testlog2,
> FILENAME = N'h:\testlog2.ldf',
> SIZE = 512KB,
> MAXSIZE = 200MB,
> FILEGROWTH = 10%)
> --
> Tony Rogerson
> SQL Server MVP
> http://www.sqlserverfaq.com?mbr=21
> (Create your own groups, Forum, FAQ's and a ton more)
>

Are multiple transaction logs used concurrently or sequentially?

It'd be nice to have redundant transaction logs, maybe even one on a
mapped drive, but I read in one post here that SQL Server considers
all transaction logs to be one big log file. Is this true?
Is there any way to have redundant transaction logs without mirroring>Hi,
No, SQL Server allows to create multiple Transaction logs for a database.
Eg: from books online:-
USE master
GO
CREATE DATABASE Archive
ON
PRIMARY ( NAME = Arch1,
FILENAME = 'c:\program files\microsoft sql
server\mssql\data\archdat1.mdf',
SIZE = 100MB,
MAXSIZE = 200,
FILEGROWTH = 20),
( NAME = Arch2,
FILENAME = 'c:\program files\microsoft sql
server\mssql\data\archdat2.ndf',
SIZE = 100MB,
MAXSIZE = 200,
FILEGROWTH = 20),
( NAME = Arch3,
FILENAME = 'c:\program files\microsoft sql
server\mssql\data\archdat3.ndf',
SIZE = 100MB,
MAXSIZE = 200,
FILEGROWTH = 20)
LOG ON
( NAME = Archlog1,
FILENAME = 'c:\program files\microsoft sql
server\mssql\data\archlog1.ldf',
SIZE = 100MB,
MAXSIZE = 200,
FILEGROWTH = 20),
( NAME = Archlog2,
FILENAME = 'c:\program files\microsoft sql
server\mssql\data\archlog2.ldf',
SIZE = 100MB,
MAXSIZE = 200,
FILEGROWTH = 20)
GO
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"fumanchu" <leondobr@.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:rjvtn0tjdv3afv74bv33t3k9ueng4fg7ml@.4ax.com...
> It'd be nice to have redundant transaction logs, maybe even one on a
> mapped drive, but I read in one post here that SQL Server considers
> all transaction logs to be one big log file. Is this true?
> Is there any way to have redundant transaction logs without mirroring>|||On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:03:37 -0500, "Hari Prasad"
<hari_prasad_k@.hotmail.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>No, SQL Server allows to create multiple Transaction logs for a database.
>
I understand that you can have multiple transaction logs, but are they
concurrent, that is, interchangeable copies of one another, or are
they used one after another as continuation files?|||Hi,
They are interchangable.Check out the section "Transaction Log Physical
Architecture" in the SQL
Server Books Online.
Thanks
Hari
"fumanchu" <leondobr@.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ii1un0h1o0tnk7s3ndmb66oc8v3nv7jb2j@.4ax.com...
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:03:37 -0500, "Hari Prasad"
> <hari_prasad_k@.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Hi,
>>No, SQL Server allows to create multiple Transaction logs for a database.
> I understand that you can have multiple transaction logs, but are they
> concurrent, that is, interchangeable copies of one another, or are
> they used one after another as continuation files?|||The logs are all in use, you would use multiple logs across multiple RAID
sets to gain better performance, say you had 3 log files, data would be
striped across all 3.
I sort of see what you might want to do what you ask, you could achieve this
by doing log shipping, but, the interval between log dumps would be your
potentially non-recovery window.
You could also look at clustering.
--
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://www.sqlserverfaq.com?mbr=21
(Create your own groups, Forum, FAQ's and a ton more)|||The way the SQL Logs work is sequential... Even if you have 5 logs, SQL is
only using one at a time, writing serially to the end of the file... So
having multiple files does not improve performance.
Mirroring is probably the best way to get redundancy on the logs, and it is
a best practice that I suspect most people follow.
There is some file mirroring software out there ( I can't remember the
company ) that keeps files in sync real-time, and they claim this works with
SQL as well...
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"fumanchu" <leondobr@.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:rjvtn0tjdv3afv74bv33t3k9ueng4fg7ml@.4ax.com...
> It'd be nice to have redundant transaction logs, maybe even one on a
> mapped drive, but I read in one post here that SQL Server considers
> all transaction logs to be one big log file. Is this true?
> Is there any way to have redundant transaction logs without mirroring>|||Hi Wayne,
If the database has multiple logs they are written to (striped) at the same
time - so, if you put them on the same logical disk they will grow together.
For example, if you create a database (see below) with 2 log files and write
a big table onto it, both log files will grow together, in my own test here
they both ended up 39MB.
The biggest problem here is that its striping (essentially RAID 0) so no
fault tolerance, if you put the logs on seperate drives and one goes then
you lose the log.
CREATE DATABASE testlog
ON PRIMARY
( NAME = testdb1,
FILENAME = N'e:\testlog1.mdf',
SIZE = 10MB,
MAXSIZE = 200MB,
FILEGROWTH = 10%)
LOG ON
( NAME = testlog1,
FILENAME = N'h:\testlog1.ldf',
SIZE = 512KB,
MAXSIZE = 200MB,
FILEGROWTH = 10%),
( NAME = testlog2,
FILENAME = N'h:\testlog2.ldf',
SIZE = 512KB,
MAXSIZE = 200MB,
FILEGROWTH = 10%)
GO
Tony.
--
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://www.sqlserverfaq.com?mbr=21
(Create your own groups, Forum, FAQ's and a ton more)|||Tony,
I think the question is about performance, and I have a feeling that SQL Server will not write
concurrently to these log files. AFAIK, SQL Server will grow one file (with z number of VLF's) fill
that, then grow the other file and fill that etc. I don't know HW enough to determine whether we
still could gain anything by having multiple log files, but assuming a simple install with one log
file per physical disk, I would assume that only one disk would be hit at a time.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Tony Rogerson" <tonyrogerson@.sqlserver.eu.com> wrote in message
news:ezYBooCvEHA.568@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi Wayne,
> If the database has multiple logs they are written to (striped) at the same time - so, if you put
> them on the same logical disk they will grow together.
> For example, if you create a database (see below) with 2 log files and write a big table onto it,
> both log files will grow together, in my own test here they both ended up 39MB.
> The biggest problem here is that its striping (essentially RAID 0) so no fault tolerance, if you
> put the logs on seperate drives and one goes then you lose the log.
> CREATE DATABASE testlog
> ON PRIMARY
> ( NAME = testdb1,
> FILENAME = N'e:\testlog1.mdf',
> SIZE = 10MB,
> MAXSIZE = 200MB,
> FILEGROWTH = 10%)
> LOG ON
> ( NAME = testlog1,
> FILENAME = N'h:\testlog1.ldf',
> SIZE = 512KB,
> MAXSIZE = 200MB,
> FILEGROWTH = 10%),
> ( NAME = testlog2,
> FILENAME = N'h:\testlog2.ldf',
> SIZE = 512KB,
> MAXSIZE = 200MB,
> FILEGROWTH = 10%)
> GO
> Tony.
> --
> Tony Rogerson
> SQL Server MVP
> http://www.sqlserverfaq.com?mbr=21
> (Create your own groups, Forum, FAQ's and a ton more)
>|||Hi Tibor,
Nope - try the example, SQL Server stripes across the 2 log files! It does
the same for multiple data files in a file group as well.
Create a database using the create db below and do something like this (from
a big table in another db)...
select *
into mytest
from yourotherdb..bigtable
where 1 = 0
go
insert mytest
select *
from yourotherdb..bigtable
Observe that the two log files end up the same size, in fact, watch them
grow - they grow at the same rate.
When multiple log (or data files) for a single db are placed on different
logical disks, the proportion of data striped to each file is dependant on
how much free space there is on the drives where they reside.
CREATE DATABASE testlog
ON PRIMARY
( NAME = testdb1,
FILENAME = N'e:\testlog1.mdf',
SIZE = 10MB,
MAXSIZE = 200MB,
FILEGROWTH = 10%)
LOG ON
( NAME = testlog1,
FILENAME = N'h:\testlog1.ldf',
SIZE = 512KB,
MAXSIZE = 200MB,
FILEGROWTH = 10%),
( NAME = testlog2,
FILENAME = N'h:\testlog2.ldf',
SIZE = 512KB,
MAXSIZE = 200MB,
FILEGROWTH = 10%)
--
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://www.sqlserverfaq.com?mbr=21
(Create your own groups, Forum, FAQ's and a ton more)|||Hi Tony
I think we're not talking about growing the physical files, but how existing
log files are filled. Your script shows that once the log files have reached
their initially created size, then new space is allocated for each of them
in a striped fashion.
But, if you change your script to initially create your log files with some
reasonable size, and then use dbcc loginfo to examine them as the insert is
taking place, you will see that one of them gets filled completely before
the other one starts to be filled.
--
HTH
--
Kalen Delaney
SQL Server MVP
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
"Tony Rogerson" <tonyrogerson@.sqlserver.eu.com> wrote in message
news:%23YSfShEvEHA.2540@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi Tibor,
> Nope - try the example, SQL Server stripes across the 2 log files! It does
> the same for multiple data files in a file group as well.
> Create a database using the create db below and do something like this
> (from a big table in another db)...
> select *
> into mytest
> from yourotherdb..bigtable
> where 1 = 0
> go
> insert mytest
> select *
> from yourotherdb..bigtable
> Observe that the two log files end up the same size, in fact, watch them
> grow - they grow at the same rate.
> When multiple log (or data files) for a single db are placed on different
> logical disks, the proportion of data striped to each file is dependant on
> how much free space there is on the drives where they reside.
> CREATE DATABASE testlog
> ON PRIMARY
> ( NAME = testdb1,
> FILENAME = N'e:\testlog1.mdf',
> SIZE = 10MB,
> MAXSIZE = 200MB,
> FILEGROWTH = 10%)
> LOG ON
> ( NAME = testlog1,
> FILENAME = N'h:\testlog1.ldf',
> SIZE = 512KB,
> MAXSIZE = 200MB,
> FILEGROWTH = 10%),
> ( NAME = testlog2,
> FILENAME = N'h:\testlog2.ldf',
> SIZE = 512KB,
> MAXSIZE = 200MB,
> FILEGROWTH = 10%)
> --
> Tony Rogerson
> SQL Server MVP
> http://www.sqlserverfaq.com?mbr=21
> (Create your own groups, Forum, FAQ's and a ton more)
>|||Sorry Kalen, didn't read the entire post.
I see that the first file is written to then it works from top to bottom on
the second file filling that first and then the first file until filled.
The allocation of space is done to both, which makes sense.
Sorry Wayne/Tibor !
Tony.
--
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://www.sqlserverfaq.com?mbr=21
(Create your own groups, Forum, FAQ's and a ton more)

Are multiple transaction logs used concurrently or sequentially?

It'd be nice to have redundant transaction logs, maybe even one on a
mapped drive, but I read in one post here that SQL Server considers
all transaction logs to be one big log file. Is this true?
Is there any way to have redundant transaction logs without mirroring>Hi,
No, SQL Server allows to create multiple Transaction logs for a database.
Eg: from books online:-
USE master
GO
CREATE DATABASE Archive
ON
PRIMARY ( NAME = Arch1,
FILENAME = 'c:\program files\microsoft sql
server\mssql\data\archdat1.mdf',
SIZE = 100MB,
MAXSIZE = 200,
FILEGROWTH = 20),
( NAME = Arch2,
FILENAME = 'c:\program files\microsoft sql
server\mssql\data\archdat2.ndf',
SIZE = 100MB,
MAXSIZE = 200,
FILEGROWTH = 20),
( NAME = Arch3,
FILENAME = 'c:\program files\microsoft sql
server\mssql\data\archdat3.ndf',
SIZE = 100MB,
MAXSIZE = 200,
FILEGROWTH = 20)
LOG ON
( NAME = Archlog1,
FILENAME = 'c:\program files\microsoft sql
server\mssql\data\archlog1.ldf',
SIZE = 100MB,
MAXSIZE = 200,
FILEGROWTH = 20),
( NAME = Archlog2,
FILENAME = 'c:\program files\microsoft sql
server\mssql\data\archlog2.ldf',
SIZE = 100MB,
MAXSIZE = 200,
FILEGROWTH = 20)
GO
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"fumanchu" <leondobr@.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:rjvtn0tjdv3afv74bv33t3k9ueng4fg7ml@.
4ax.com...
> It'd be nice to have redundant transaction logs, maybe even one on a
> mapped drive, but I read in one post here that SQL Server considers
> all transaction logs to be one big log file. Is this true?
> Is there any way to have redundant transaction logs without mirroring>|||On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:03:37 -0500, "Hari Prasad"
<hari_prasad_k@.hotmail.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>No, SQL Server allows to create multiple Transaction logs for a database.
>
I understand that you can have multiple transaction logs, but are they
concurrent, that is, interchangeable copies of one another, or are
they used one after another as continuation files?|||Hi,
They are interchangable.Check out the section "Transaction Log Physical
Architecture" in the SQL
Server Books Online.
Thanks
Hari
"fumanchu" <leondobr@.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ii1un0h1o0tnk7s3ndmb66oc8v3nv7jb2j@.
4ax.com...
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:03:37 -0500, "Hari Prasad"
> <hari_prasad_k@.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I understand that you can have multiple transaction logs, but are they
> concurrent, that is, interchangeable copies of one another, or are
> they used one after another as continuation files?|||The logs are all in use, you would use multiple logs across multiple RAID
sets to gain better performance, say you had 3 log files, data would be
striped across all 3.
I sort of see what you might want to do what you ask, you could achieve this
by doing log shipping, but, the interval between log dumps would be your
potentially non-recovery window.
You could also look at clustering.
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://www.sqlserverfaq.com?mbr=21
(Create your own groups, Forum, FAQ's and a ton more)|||The way the SQL Logs work is sequential... Even if you have 5 logs, SQL is
only using one at a time, writing serially to the end of the file... So
having multiple files does not improve performance.
Mirroring is probably the best way to get redundancy on the logs, and it is
a best practice that I suspect most people follow.
There is some file mirroring software out there ( I can't remember the
company ) that keeps files in sync real-time, and they claim this works with
SQL as well...
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"fumanchu" <leondobr@.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:rjvtn0tjdv3afv74bv33t3k9ueng4fg7ml@.
4ax.com...
> It'd be nice to have redundant transaction logs, maybe even one on a
> mapped drive, but I read in one post here that SQL Server considers
> all transaction logs to be one big log file. Is this true?
> Is there any way to have redundant transaction logs without mirroring>|||Hi Wayne,
If the database has multiple logs they are written to (striped) at the same
time - so, if you put them on the same logical disk they will grow together.
For example, if you create a database (see below) with 2 log files and write
a big table onto it, both log files will grow together, in my own test here
they both ended up 39MB.
The biggest problem here is that its striping (essentially RAID 0) so no
fault tolerance, if you put the logs on seperate drives and one goes then
you lose the log.
CREATE DATABASE testlog
ON PRIMARY
( NAME = testdb1,
FILENAME = N'e:\testlog1.mdf',
SIZE = 10MB,
MAXSIZE = 200MB,
FILEGROWTH = 10%)
LOG ON
( NAME = testlog1,
FILENAME = N'h:\testlog1.ldf',
SIZE = 512KB,
MAXSIZE = 200MB,
FILEGROWTH = 10%),
( NAME = testlog2,
FILENAME = N'h:\testlog2.ldf',
SIZE = 512KB,
MAXSIZE = 200MB,
FILEGROWTH = 10%)
GO
Tony.
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://www.sqlserverfaq.com?mbr=21
(Create your own groups, Forum, FAQ's and a ton more)|||Tony,
I think the question is about performance, and I have a feeling that SQL Ser
ver will not write
concurrently to these log files. AFAIK, SQL Server will grow one file (with
z number of VLF's) fill
that, then grow the other file and fill that etc. I don't know HW enough to
determine whether we
still could gain anything by having multiple log files, but assuming a simpl
e install with one log
file per physical disk, I would assume that only one disk would be hit at a
time.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Tony Rogerson" <tonyrogerson@.sqlserver.eu.com> wrote in message
news:ezYBooCvEHA.568@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi Wayne,
> If the database has multiple logs they are written to (striped) at the sam
e time - so, if you put
> them on the same logical disk they will grow together.
> For example, if you create a database (see below) with 2 log files and wri
te a big table onto it,
> both log files will grow together, in my own test here they both ended up
39MB.
> The biggest problem here is that its striping (essentially RAID 0) so no f
ault tolerance, if you
> put the logs on seperate drives and one goes then you lose the log.
> CREATE DATABASE testlog
> ON PRIMARY
> ( NAME = testdb1,
> FILENAME = N'e:\testlog1.mdf',
> SIZE = 10MB,
> MAXSIZE = 200MB,
> FILEGROWTH = 10%)
> LOG ON
> ( NAME = testlog1,
> FILENAME = N'h:\testlog1.ldf',
> SIZE = 512KB,
> MAXSIZE = 200MB,
> FILEGROWTH = 10%),
> ( NAME = testlog2,
> FILENAME = N'h:\testlog2.ldf',
> SIZE = 512KB,
> MAXSIZE = 200MB,
> FILEGROWTH = 10%)
> GO
> Tony.
> --
> Tony Rogerson
> SQL Server MVP
> http://www.sqlserverfaq.com?mbr=21
> (Create your own groups, Forum, FAQ's and a ton more)
>|||Hi Tibor,
Nope - try the example, SQL Server stripes across the 2 log files! It does
the same for multiple data files in a file group as well.
Create a database using the create db below and do something like this (from
a big table in another db)...
select *
into mytest
from yourotherdb..bigtable
where 1 = 0
go
insert mytest
select *
from yourotherdb..bigtable
Observe that the two log files end up the same size, in fact, watch them
grow - they grow at the same rate.
When multiple log (or data files) for a single db are placed on different
logical disks, the proportion of data striped to each file is dependant on
how much free space there is on the drives where they reside.
CREATE DATABASE testlog
ON PRIMARY
( NAME = testdb1,
FILENAME = N'e:\testlog1.mdf',
SIZE = 10MB,
MAXSIZE = 200MB,
FILEGROWTH = 10%)
LOG ON
( NAME = testlog1,
FILENAME = N'h:\testlog1.ldf',
SIZE = 512KB,
MAXSIZE = 200MB,
FILEGROWTH = 10%),
( NAME = testlog2,
FILENAME = N'h:\testlog2.ldf',
SIZE = 512KB,
MAXSIZE = 200MB,
FILEGROWTH = 10%)
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://www.sqlserverfaq.com?mbr=21
(Create your own groups, Forum, FAQ's and a ton more)|||Hi Tony
I think we're not talking about growing the physical files, but how existing
log files are filled. Your script shows that once the log files have reached
their initially created size, then new space is allocated for each of them
in a striped fashion.
But, if you change your script to initially create your log files with some
reasonable size, and then use dbcc loginfo to examine them as the insert is
taking place, you will see that one of them gets filled completely before
the other one starts to be filled.
HTH
--
Kalen Delaney
SQL Server MVP
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
"Tony Rogerson" <tonyrogerson@.sqlserver.eu.com> wrote in message
news:%23YSfShEvEHA.2540@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi Tibor,
> Nope - try the example, SQL Server stripes across the 2 log files! It does
> the same for multiple data files in a file group as well.
> Create a database using the create db below and do something like this
> (from a big table in another db)...
> select *
> into mytest
> from yourotherdb..bigtable
> where 1 = 0
> go
> insert mytest
> select *
> from yourotherdb..bigtable
> Observe that the two log files end up the same size, in fact, watch them
> grow - they grow at the same rate.
> When multiple log (or data files) for a single db are placed on different
> logical disks, the proportion of data striped to each file is dependant on
> how much free space there is on the drives where they reside.
> CREATE DATABASE testlog
> ON PRIMARY
> ( NAME = testdb1,
> FILENAME = N'e:\testlog1.mdf',
> SIZE = 10MB,
> MAXSIZE = 200MB,
> FILEGROWTH = 10%)
> LOG ON
> ( NAME = testlog1,
> FILENAME = N'h:\testlog1.ldf',
> SIZE = 512KB,
> MAXSIZE = 200MB,
> FILEGROWTH = 10%),
> ( NAME = testlog2,
> FILENAME = N'h:\testlog2.ldf',
> SIZE = 512KB,
> MAXSIZE = 200MB,
> FILEGROWTH = 10%)
> --
> Tony Rogerson
> SQL Server MVP
> http://www.sqlserverfaq.com?mbr=21
> (Create your own groups, Forum, FAQ's and a ton more)
>