Database Administrators Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for database professionals who wish to improve their database skills and learn from others in the community. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

My very short overview

  • SQL Server databases are installed as virtual machines on VMWare, there are plugged a few disk areas with the same (or very similair) parameters

  • versions are SQL Server 2005/2008 R2 Standard installed on Win2003/2008 Datacenter

  • Databases files are saved on another disk as is WinOS installed

Is this logic about good practicies, or are there other important, significant arguments for or against, why we should do this (or not do this)?

share|improve this question
up vote 3 down vote accepted

It's typically good practice to seperate your OS installation from your database installation to isolate OS disk issues from database disk issues.

The primary reason for this is to reduce the change that a problem with the OS could prevent recovery of the database, or vice versa. If your database fills up the free disk space, it can crash both the database and the OS.

This also allows you to have different recovery options available for the different pieces. We typically run RAID 1 (Mirroring) on our OS disks, and RAID 5 (or some other type of parity + striping) on our Database disks. Since the OS disk has fewer writes, we can take the performance hit of mirroring, to reduce recovery time in a crash situation. But on the Database side we want to maximize the performance of reads/writes at the expense of recovery time in a crash situation.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.