June 25, 2009 at 8:31 am
Ed
The three installs (including SP's) used 6.5 GB on the C: drive as follows:
C:\Program Files 1.5GB
C:\Program Files (x86) 1GB
C:\windows\Installer 3GB
C:\windows\assembly 1GB
Doesn't sound like alot but our standard build only has an 18GB C:\ drive which has 11.7GB free when handed over to us. We will need to get this increased but in the meantime I was looking for a way of using the E:\ drive (which we specify on install) as much as possible. Looks like there isn't a way.
Thanks
John
June 25, 2009 at 9:18 am
Regarding permanent space on the C: drive, just about all you can do is save a few 10MBs by deleting log files, etc.
I recommend moving the Windows /Temp folder to another drive, as this can get many 100MB in it that does not need to be on C:.
Even with this, if you want to get 5 years of SQL Server maintenance applied before you are forced to rebuild the box, then you need to think about starting with a 30GB system drive for W2003, and 40GB for W2008.
Original author: https://github.com/SQL-FineBuild/Common/wiki/ 1-click install and best practice configuration of SQL Server 2019, 2017 2016, 2014, 2012, 2008 R2, 2008 and 2005.
When I give food to the poor they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor they call me a communist - Archbishop Hélder Câmara
June 25, 2009 at 11:30 am
Good post, I was wondering the same thing. I was installing SQL2k8 yesterday on a VM for DEV with WS2008 as the OS and after the first instance I was down to about 2 GB. While the second instance was installing I was watching the the space on C: trickle down to 44mb. Luckly the sys admins had some extra space they could allocate to C:
June 25, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Not to hjijack the thread, but Ed, do they really need that space?
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
June 26, 2009 at 2:43 am
What I have done with the space estimates for SQL Server is:
1) Look at what space gets used on the RTM install
2) Look at what additional space is used by each CTP, using 2 or 3 CTPs as a model
3) Look at what additional space is used by a SP
4) Round up space used to the nearest 100 MB
5) Project forward over a reasonable life span of 5 years for the server
I have also made an estimate of what space may be required by Windows fixes, but the calculations for this are far less rigourous.
Finally, I assume that the disk will still have 10% free space at the end of 5 years. It could be argued that 10% free space when you are looking at a few GB is too much, but you need to keep a few GB free for the SQL installer to use as work space when it is applying fixes.
Each site needs to make their own estimates and assumptions. The estimates I have given may or may not turn out to be too generous - we shall see. However, many sites might prefer to have maybe 10% too much free space than 10% too little and be forced to expand the system disk outside of normal hardware refresh cycles.
I see the main point of the estimates is to give a heads up that SQL Server needs a lot of space on the system drive, and that recent versions of Windows also need a lot of space. It is not enough to just look at what is needed for the RTM install, as just about every Windows or SQL maintenance package adds to the total space used.
Original author: https://github.com/SQL-FineBuild/Common/wiki/ 1-click install and best practice configuration of SQL Server 2019, 2017 2016, 2014, 2012, 2008 R2, 2008 and 2005.
When I give food to the poor they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor they call me a communist - Archbishop Hélder Câmara
June 26, 2009 at 2:50 am
Ed
Thanks for the input. looks Like we'll be increasing the size of C:\ drive on our builds and possibly looking at using multiple virtual Windows servers instead of multiple SQL Server instances (or a combination of both).
Cheers
John
June 26, 2009 at 2:51 am
should I/could I uninstall SP2 or hotfixes once SP3 is installed successfully
Each Service Pack and CU is cumulative. It always includes all the fixes that were included in the previous SP or CU.
Therefore the concept of uninstalling SP2 after you install SP3 does not apply - everything that was installed with SP2 is also needed for SP3, and SP3 adds a load of extra stuff.
It would be theoretically possible to identify that some modules could be safely removed after SP3 has been applied to all your instances. However, IMHO unless there is a Microsoft-approved method to do this you risk voiding your support if you make a mistake and delete something that is still needed.
Original author: https://github.com/SQL-FineBuild/Common/wiki/ 1-click install and best practice configuration of SQL Server 2019, 2017 2016, 2014, 2012, 2008 R2, 2008 and 2005.
When I give food to the poor they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor they call me a communist - Archbishop Hélder Câmara
June 26, 2009 at 3:03 am
do they really need that space?
As a PS, my main Vista partition at home has on it Vista, Office, and not a lot else. As far as I can remember, the RTM installs took up 15GB or 16GB on a 25GB partition. After about 2 years of Microsoft fixes free space was down to one or two MB and I had to expand the partition. My W2003 and W2008 instances also have a lot less free space than when the OS was installed, courtesy mainly of Microsoft Update.
Original author: https://github.com/SQL-FineBuild/Common/wiki/ 1-click install and best practice configuration of SQL Server 2019, 2017 2016, 2014, 2012, 2008 R2, 2008 and 2005.
When I give food to the poor they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor they call me a communist - Archbishop Hélder Câmara
June 26, 2009 at 8:41 am
Sorry, what I meant (and didn't say) was does SQL Server need this stuff on %SystemRoot% for some reason? Or could it be in the /bin for where SQL Server is installed?
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
June 26, 2009 at 9:03 am
John Burke (6/26/2009)
EdThanks for the input. looks Like we'll be increasing the size of C:\ drive on our builds and possibly looking at using multiple virtual Windows servers instead of multiple SQL Server instances (or a combination of both).
Are there licensing issues there?
I am not sure how this works - multiple SQL instances should not require separate licenses, but do not seem to offer much benefit if you cannot even save the disk space on the system drive.
On the other hand, multiple SQL servers on different Windows servers (even if virtual) would surely attract multiple license fees?
June 26, 2009 at 9:08 am
As far as I can see, most of the stuff that is put on the system drive has to be there.
The SQL install adds a lot of files to the \Windows folder structure, and a few files into the Program Files\Common Files structure, and these probably could not go elsewhere (given the limitations of customising where Windows want to keep things).
This leaves the Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server folder on the system drive. This takes about 500MB on the system drive for SQL2005 (most of that being for the Visual Studio components). IMHO this could be hosted on any drive, but Microsoft have chosen to put this stuff on the system drive. However, even if the install was changed so these components wend to a different drive, it will haev very little impact on the total space needed on the system drive for SQL Server :crying:
Original author: https://github.com/SQL-FineBuild/Common/wiki/ 1-click install and best practice configuration of SQL Server 2019, 2017 2016, 2014, 2012, 2008 R2, 2008 and 2005.
When I give food to the poor they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor they call me a communist - Archbishop Hélder Câmara
Viewing 11 posts - 16 through 25 (of 25 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply