Datafiles placement in filegroup

I'm working with a production database connecting remotely. All the datafile
s, index files and log is placed on the same disk but in different filegroup
names based on separate physical files. But I expect if I place the index f
iles or/add log files sep
arate from the datafiles I mean in different disk it will improve the perfor
mance.
If my expectation is correct then can I change the place of the index and lo
g files in separate location while the database is on-line yes the database
is implemented with log-shipping too.
Please evaluate my query and do give a proper suggestion.
Thanks in advance
Sunilsurely it will improve the performance if the log files are placed seperate
from the data files (different disks).
for the indexes u can delete the existing index and recreate it specifying
the new location.
"Sunil" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4690C174-4988-4737-82D9-7C0ED08FDF5D@.microsoft.com...

quote:

---

> I'm working with a production database connecting remotely. All the

---

datafiles, index files and log is placed on the same disk but in different
filegroup names based on separate physical files. But I expect if I place
the index files or/add log files separate from the datafiles I mean in
different disk it will improve the performance.

quote:

---

> If my expectation is correct then can I change the place of the index and

---

log files in separate location while the database is on-line yes the
database is implemented with log-shipping too.

quote:

---

>
> Please evaluate my query and do give a proper suggestion.
>
> Thanks in advance
> Sunil
>

---

Datafiles placement in filegroup

I'm working with a production database connecting remotely. All the datafiles, index files and log is placed on the same disk but in different filegroup names based on separate physical files. But I expect if I place the index files or/add log files separate from the datafiles I mean in different disk it will improve the performance.
If my expectation is correct then can I change the place of the index and log files in separate location while the database is on-line yes the database is implemented with log-shipping too.
Please evaluate my query and do give a proper suggestion.
Thanks in advance
Sunilsurely it will improve the performance if the log files are placed seperate
from the data files (different disks).
for the indexes u can delete the existing index and recreate it specifying
the new location.
"Sunil" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4690C174-4988-4737-82D9-7C0ED08FDF5D@.microsoft.com...
> I'm working with a production database connecting remotely. All the
datafiles, index files and log is placed on the same disk but in different
filegroup names based on separate physical files. But I expect if I place
the index files or/add log files separate from the datafiles I mean in
different disk it will improve the performance.
> If my expectation is correct then can I change the place of the index and
log files in separate location while the database is on-line yes the
database is implemented with log-shipping too.
>
> Please evaluate my query and do give a proper suggestion.
>
> Thanks in advance
> Sunil
>|||You are mostly correct.
Creating new files doesn't automatically improve
performace, it also depends upon the raid configuration of
the disk its going on.
For instance putting a log file on a RAID 0 disk will make
it faster than putting it on a raid 5 disk.
Although its different for every type of application a
normal implementation with cost constraints its to put the
log files on a raid 0 or raid 0+1 with the data files on
raid 5.
J
>--Original Message--
>I'm working with a production database connecting
remotely. All the datafiles, index files and log is placed
on the same disk but in different filegroup names based on
separate physical files. But I expect if I place the index
files or/add log files separate from the datafiles I
mean in different disk it will improve the performance.
>If my expectation is correct then can I change the place
of the index and log files in separate location while the
database is on-line yes the database is implemented with
log-shipping too.
>
>Please evaluate my query and do give a proper suggestion.
>
>Thanks in advance
>Sunil
>.
>

Database/Log placement

I know that Database 101 required that you place your log files and
your databases on different phyiscal disks for the purpose of disaster
recovery. Does this still hold true if a SAN (EMC) is in the picture?
A client site configured their initial log file drive too
small, and they have proposed moving the logs to the database drive
which has plenty of free space.
They are aware that they will be losing some performance as the log
file drive was on its own spindle for the sequential writes.
TIA,
DaveAn EMC device will be able to protect you against physical failure of the
drives or LUN but can do nothing about the health of the filesystem on which
the database files reside. A corrupted filesystem can get you as badly as a
failed LUN. Having your logs on a different filesystem allows you to
restore to the point of failure by using a BACKUP LOG WITH NO_TRUNCATE if
the LUN with the physical database files goes away. That said, we live in
the real world and many of my client have to keep data files and log files
on the same filesystem. Just keep good backups.
Christian
"Dave" <dderocha@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7e4fb551.0402050821.76b46122@.posting.google.com...

quote:

---

> I know that Database 101 required that you place your log files and
> your databases on different phyiscal disks for the purpose of disaster
> recovery. Does this still hold true if a SAN (EMC) is in the picture?
> A client site configured their initial log file drive too
> small, and they have proposed moving the logs to the database drive
> which has plenty of free space.
> They are aware that they will be losing some performance as the log
> file drive was on its own spindle for the sequential writes.
> TIA,
> Dave

---

Database/Log placement

I know that Database 101 required that you place your log files and
your databases on different phyiscal disks for the purpose of disaster
recovery. Does this still hold true if a SAN (EMC) is in the picture?
A client site configured their initial log file drive too
small, and they have proposed moving the logs to the database drive
which has plenty of free space.
They are aware that they will be losing some performance as the log
file drive was on its own spindle for the sequential writes.
TIA,
DaveAn EMC device will be able to protect you against physical failure of the
drives or LUN but can do nothing about the health of the filesystem on which
the database files reside. A corrupted filesystem can get you as badly as a
failed LUN. Having your logs on a different filesystem allows you to
restore to the point of failure by using a BACKUP LOG WITH NO_TRUNCATE if
the LUN with the physical database files goes away. That said, we live in
the real world and many of my client have to keep data files and log files
on the same filesystem. Just keep good backups.
Christian
"Dave" <dderocha@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7e4fb551.0402050821.76b46122@.posting.google.com...
> I know that Database 101 required that you place your log files and
> your databases on different phyiscal disks for the purpose of disaster
> recovery. Does this still hold true if a SAN (EMC) is in the picture?
> A client site configured their initial log file drive too
> small, and they have proposed moving the logs to the database drive
> which has plenty of free space.
> They are aware that they will be losing some performance as the log
> file drive was on its own spindle for the sequential writes.
> TIA,
> Dave