Good afternoon.
In the found planning recommendations, there are tips not to make the size of one database more than 2 TB and not more than 50 databases per server, but nothing about the size of disks for databases. Intuitively it seems to me that to store everything on one disk is not very correct as if something goes wrong, it will be more difficult to restore. But a separate disk for each database does not seem a good option.
Now I have 20 bases on 3 disks, the total volume of 22TB. Think it's better to split it into 7 disks at 4TB (4 bases on disk), that was a reserve for growth or 14 disks to 2TB (2 bases on disk). Virtual servers are located on the same LUN, so there is no difference in the number and size of disks on the storage side.
Are there best practices for placing the number of databases on a single disk and the size of the disk itself? On the Windows side, is there a difference in write-read speed?
In the found planning recommendations, there are tips not to make the size of one database more than 2 TB and not more than 50 databases per server, but nothing about the size of disks for databases. Intuitively it seems to me that to store everything on one disk is not very correct as if something goes wrong, it will be more difficult to restore. But a separate disk for each database does not seem a good option.
Now I have 20 bases on 3 disks, the total volume of 22TB. Think it's better to split it into 7 disks at 4TB (4 bases on disk), that was a reserve for growth or 14 disks to 2TB (2 bases on disk). Virtual servers are located on the same LUN, so there is no difference in the number and size of disks on the storage side.
Are there best practices for placing the number of databases on a single disk and the size of the disk itself? On the Windows side, is there a difference in write-read speed?