From: "Antti Kurenniemi" 

Can you tell me a bit about what sort of load you have on those servers?
Like, how many users and roughly how much data? I'm really interested,
because it looks like we may be able to finally (well maybe perhaps could
be...) get rid of the built in database server that comes with our
operational system, and use SQL server for it.


Antti Kurenniemi

"Ellen K."  wrote
in message news:7jvt509inlbhuhct111p29nrm2ur6p2ta5{at}4ax.com...
> This is interesting.   The configuration I came up with for my SQL
> Server boxes is:
>
> 3 drives in a RAID5 array - for the data and the clustered indexes
> 2 drives in RAID1 (mirrored) - for the transaction log
> 1 solo drive for the nonclustered indexes
>
> This optimizes performance of the database.
>
> I wish I didn't have to have the nonredundant drive, but our servers all
> only have six drives.  I have a script they can run if the solo drive
> dies that DROPs all the nonclustered indexes and then rebuilds them on
> the RAID5 "drive" until they can replace it.  The database
would be slow
> during this period but could stay up.  But presumably they would get a
> SMART warning in time to back it up so they wouldn't even have to use
> the script... but either way they would have to take down the box long
> enough to swap out the drive.
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5