188 reputation
6
bio website stackoverflow.com/users/…
location Scottsdale, AZ
age 31
visits member for 3 years, 4 months
seen yesterday

Software Engineer in Scottsdale, AZ.

E-Mail: mfredrickson [at] cox [dot] net

https://www.linkedin.com/pub/michael-fredrickson/8a/510/990

http://careers.stackoverflow.com/mfredrickson


Mar
10
awarded  Autobiographer
Jan
24
comment Impact of keeping 100+ Linked Server Objects open in MS SQL Server
Linked Servers can cause memory leaks
Mar
8
awarded  Cleanup
Mar
8
revised SQL Server 2005 Disk Configuration: Single RAID 1+0 or multiple RAID 1+0s?
rolled back to a previous revision
Mar
8
awarded  Editor
Mar
8
revised SQL Server 2005 Disk Configuration: Single RAID 1+0 or multiple RAID 1+0s?
deleted 1 characters in body
Mar
3
awarded  Teacher
Feb
28
answered SQL Server tempdb size seems large, is this normal?
Feb
28
awarded  Scholar
Feb
28
comment SQL Server 2005 Disk Configuration: Single RAID 1+0 or multiple RAID 1+0s?
Thank you all for the information. My confusion was as to why it is suggested to physically split the data and log files, and I now know that it is because data files are typically accessed randomly, while the log files are accessed sequentially. So for a disk array writing to a log file, the read/write head on the drive only has to typically move to the next sector... where as a data file will have the head moving all over the place. Does the sequential performance boost still hold true if there are log files from different databases on the same physical disk?
Feb
28
accepted SQL Server 2005 Disk Configuration: Single RAID 1+0 or multiple RAID 1+0s?
Feb
28
awarded  Student
Feb
28
asked SQL Server 2005 Disk Configuration: Single RAID 1+0 or multiple RAID 1+0s?