We bought two new HP dual Xeon quad-core CPU servers.
- The SQL server has 4 15,000 RPM hard drives and is set up in a RAID 10. There is no partition, and the OS and SQL database will reside on the same physical volume (s) in the RAID array.
- The SAM server has two hard drives and will be setup in a mirrored configuration (RAID 1) for redundancy.
- Both servers have dual NICs, and are using HP network teaming to load balance
- We use SAM, NPM, NCM, UDT, and Network Atlas
The question was brought concerning the SQL server on having the OS and SQL database on separate partitions. The reason was keeping them on separate logical volumes would help reduce unnecessary disk queue times brought on by the OS (which may affect the SQL server writing). Right now we are having issues with slow response times when drilling down on nodes, but I honestly feel our current SQL database server is taking on too much (it only uses one hard drive for the OS and SQL). I feel it is also over burdened based on the hardware capability vs. number of polling.
We only have 4 drives so taking one out to put the OS on will leave us with only 3 drives for the SQL database (which means no RAID 10). I'm thinking with the speed of the 4 drives in a RAID 10, 16GB of memory, and a dual CPU quad-core Xeon setup ....that having the OS and SQL database reside in the same array won't make a difference speed wise.
Any thoughts or experiences with this ? We don't have the cash or drive bays to create multiple RAID arrays. We've gone the SAM server with 2 SAS disk drives, and the database server with 4 SAS disk drives.