SQL 2012 drives

Win 2008 r2, RAID 10.
For SQL 2012, do I need to split up the install onto separate drives like logs to L drive and tempdb to T drive or can I install all to one drive on the D drive.
Who is Participating?
QuinnDexConnect With a Mentor Commented:
splitting logs out on to separate drives only helps if they are physically separate, on raid 10 they are virtually separate so wont give you any extra i/o capacity

raid 10 will be giving you the maximum i/o read/write capacity so installing to the same drive will be ok
TalShyarConnect With a Mentor Commented:
As far as I can remember, you have always been able to install SQL Server on the same drive. The reason for installing all the components on different drive letters was for performance reasons.

The reason for installing SQL on the non-OS drive is to make sure that your server does not crash if you ever run out of space. This rule of thumb is true for all applications.

On a side note:
There is a security best practices document for SQL 2012 that is available at http://download.microsoft.com/download/8/F/A/8FABACD7-803E-40FC-ADF8-355E7D218F4C/SQL_Server_2012_Security_Best_Practice_Whitepaper_Apr2012.docx. It has very little to do with your question but you may want to look through it.
You should install SQL Server on a non-OS disk, as TalShyar says. Place log files on another logical disk, to minimise the impact of things like log file growth. TempDB should go on its own drive (if you're that rich!) because it gets far more use than any other database.
A proven path to a career in data science

At Springboard, we know how to get you a job in data science. With Springboard’s Data Science Career Track, you’ll master data science  with a curriculum built by industry experts. You’ll work on real projects, and get 1-on-1 mentorship from a data scientist.

drunkennoodleAuthor Commented:
I might possibly be able to create separate logical drives for

C drive - Windows OS
D drive - data
L drive - log
T drive - tempdb

I don't have limited storage space.  What is the rule of thumb for the size of the drive for logs and the drive for tempdb?

Since I'm running RAID 10, I should be OK if the log and tempdb reside on the D drive with the data.  Correct?
drunkennoodleAuthor Commented:
If possible I would like

c: OS
d: SQL (including data, logs and tempdb)

With one big RAID 10 array, I shouldn't have any performance issues.  Correct?
Maybe not.

I couldn't find this before: go to Brent Ozar's site and check out this page of help. This one will help too. Finally, this set of Q & A should help.

Overall, remember that your installation is different from anyone else's, and what your installation needs depends on what it'll be used for. I have a Linux machine with one hard drive hosting five different VMs, each with a different version of SQL Server, with everything all on C:. However, I am a developer, and while I do work with a fair amount of data, I normally do it remotely. As you can see, my requirements aren't remotely like yours!


unless the drives are physically different splitting your installation among different drives will not give you an advantage.

i would add 2 more drives raid 0 configure these as c for the os, then install SQL on your raid 10.

the advantage of splitting your installation over different drives is each can be accessed simultaneously. speeding up i/o read/write, this cant happen for logical drives, raid 10 already increases your i/o to the maximum your discs can achieve
drunkennoodleAuthor Commented:
Thanks for all replies.

On the RAID 10 I will have a C (OS) and D drive (SQL data, tempdb, logs).
Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.

All Courses

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.