I'm certainly not a SQL expert, so others can correct me, but the main point is being able to read and write data in parallel and thus make that data available in parallel to the processors. Parallel processing comes from the processor and splitting tasks among multiple file can thus be beneficial; however, if those files share the same physical drives, then you've introduced an IO bottleneck which could make things worse. Not having multiple files doesn't prevent parallel processing though.
Ultimately, for 1,500 though, you won't see any true difference as that is chump change for ConfigMgr and SQL Server. J From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Roland Janus Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 10:52 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [mssms] Splitting up DB's and files for CM for 1500 clients to volumes I was on the impression that multiple files allows SQL to process in parallel, so not better because of different volumes but better for multiprocessing. Not? I plan to do some IOPS measuring, but in general I would have gone with all of SQL on one volume for that size. That was a yes, right? :) Basically: D: ConfigManager and SQL install E: SQL Data F: CM content source G: Content library (F: and G: not for performance reasons, but it seems to make sense to split that up) -roland From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jason Sandys Sent: Montag, 26. Januar 2015 14:23 To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: [mssms] Splitting up DB's and files for CM for 1500 clients to volumes No, not for 1,500 different clients. Also, LUNs are meaningless. LUNs are simply logical separation of disk space and have nothing to do with perf. If you were going to do this, you would need to ensure that you split the files onto separate physical disks otherwise the perf gains are negligible. J From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Roland Janus Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:44 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [mssms] Splitting up DB's and files for CM for 1500 clients to volumes A single primary would run on Hyper-V guest and also has the WSUS and MDT DB. Would you bother to split the different parts of the CM DB to different volumes, if that serves max 1500 clients and if we have a rather good SAN? Given that we would use different LUNs, but should I bother at all for that size or wouldn't one volume for the DB be sufficient performance wise? (I still would split up the DB into several files though) -Roland
