SQL on SAN, 16 or 1
A client has 16 databases, one per teritory, all running the same application and all on the same server and all the files on a SAN. The data in the 16 databases could all run in just one database. Will running all the activity through one database be faster than running it through 16? All the files are on the SAN. Should the log files be on a different array or doesn't it matter with a SAN?
Software/Hardware used:
Software/Hardware used:
ASKED:
February 9, 2005 7:26 AM
UPDATED:
February 3, 2009 2:59 PM
Answer Wiki:
Client written application using SQL Server was designed to be on local servers at each facility. Instead of individual local facility servers, each of the sixteen facilities has its own database on the corporate SQL Server cluster. All of the .mdf, .ndf, and .ldf files are on a SAN.
The first question is if there would be an appreciable performance improvement if database files were placed on separate disks. Disk Layout Best Practices Published By Microsoft Team recommends data files and transaction log files of a database be placed on separate disks. Some more recent source has indicated ?SANs are well suited for these uses with SQL Server 2000? but do not specifically address the separate disks issue. This matter requires further investigation.
The second concern is the performance difference between using the current sixteen databases verses a single corporate wide version. Either way SQL would reside on the same hardware and support the same user volume. The issue is whether SQL Server would have an appreciable performance improvement in having a single application database verses having sixteen
To see all answers submitted to the Answer Wiki: View Answer History.
RSS - Discussions Help
Discuss This Question:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
