Weekly survey: does size really matter – or is it what you do with it?

This week's survey is a little more complicated. I'm interested in the physical layout of your databases. I've got four surveys, for a variety of database sizes. Please vote multiple times in each survey, as you see fit – and by all means forward this link to your friends/clients/etc or re-blog/tweet it. I'm going to report on this survey in two weeks, to give a bit more time for people to respond (and because we're travelling next week). I think we're going to see some interesting statistics come out of this – the more people that respond the better. I'll report on it 4/24/09.

One thing to note – this is just for user databases, not for tempdb. In the surveys, "multiple filegroups" implies multiple files too, and if you don't have them spread exactly one per drive/etc, just choose that option – I only have 10 options to choose from in the free surveys. 

(If you're in the over 1TB range and have multiple files/filesgroups spread over multiple drives/arrays/LUNs, vote using the last option on the >1TB survey and I'll lump them together.) 

Phew – thanks!

9 thoughts on “Weekly survey: does size really matter – or is it what you do with it?

  1. What about multiple filegroups, mulitple files spread across multiple drive/array/LUN for X? And the two that I would say this layout scheme is for, is related to both performance and manageability.

  2. Multiple filegroups implies multiple files, right? Or am I missing something? I only have ten possible answers in the free surveys.

  3. Great survey. I answered as my recently inherited environment is currently setup. I think ideally I would like to do multiple filegroups for recoverability/potential growth in most cases. Harder to justify for the under 10GB databases but it’s easier to start out with multiple files than change later (though that’s not impossible obviously).

  4. I do not see the answer : I just have one RAID 5 LUN because my sysadmins do not want to bother themselves too much …

  5. I’m not seeing multiple filegroups, across multiple LUN’s (implying some are 1 filegroup 1 LUN, some grouped on a single LUN), multiple reasons. :) In the "Over 1TB" section.

  6. I would need multiple filegroups containing multiple files spread out over multiple LUNs for performance reasons for me to vote in the > 1TB space.

  7. Paul,

    When you report on this, if it is possible can you include some notes on the number controllers (1, 2, 4) and how this will impact the layout.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Other articles

Imagine feeling confident enough to handle whatever your database throws at you.

With training and consulting from SQLskills, you’ll be able to solve big problems, elevate your team’s capacity, and take control of your data career.