Sql-server – LDF files vs. TRN files vs. Tempdb.MDF+LDF files.:

Unfortunately this is a big ol' "it depends". Complicated further by your having so many applications, probably with wildly different IO profiles, sharing the same instance/server and arrays.

Usually you would want to isolate data and log files as the IO profiles are polar opposite. Typically weighted toward random read for data files and sequential write for logs. The log element is somewhat different in your case as you have multiple log files.

I'd start by getting an understanding of the IO the databases are consuming relative to each other.

    SELECT
        DB_NAME(fs.database_id) AS [Database Name]
      , mf.physical_name
      , io_stall_read_ms
      , num_of_reads
      , CAST(io_stall_read_ms / (1.0 + num_of_reads) AS NUMERIC(10, 1)) AS [avg_read_stall_ms]
      , io_stall_write_ms
      , num_of_writes
      , CAST(io_stall_write_ms / (1.0 + num_of_writes) AS NUMERIC(10, 1)) AS [avg_write_stall_ms]
      , io_stall_read_ms + io_stall_write_ms AS [io_stalls]
      , num_of_reads + num_of_writes AS [total_io]
      , CAST((io_stall_read_ms + io_stall_write_ms) 
        / (1.0 + num_of_reads + num_of_writes) AS NUMERIC(10,1)) AS [avg_io_stall_ms]
    FROM
        sys.dm_io_virtual_file_stats(NULL, NULL) AS fs
    INNER JOIN sys.master_files AS mf
    ON  fs.database_id = mf.database_id
        AND fs.[file_id] = mf.[file_id]
    ORDER BY
            DatabaseName ASC, mf.physical_name
--  num_of_reads DESC
--  num_of_writes DESC  
    OPTION (RECOMPILE) ;

If you can format the output of this into a readable form and add to your question, someone can make a more educated guess at the best use of your 18 disks.

If I was doing this blind, I'd probably start off allocating:

• 6 RAID10 for the busiest database's data files
• 6 RAID10 for the other database's data files
• 4 RAID10 shared Logs
• 2 RAID1 Tempdb (your single disk configuration is a risky single point of failure)

Assuming that:

1. the SAN hosts other arrays and therefore hot spares are available from a pool
2. snapshot isolation isn't in use or isn't placing heavy demands on tempdb

Edit: Following update to question regarding queue lengths:

Queue length counters are oft misunderstood when evaluating SQL Server performance. One of the best analogies I've come across is from a Simon Sabin blog post, Disk Queue Length - a bit like buying Guiness.

In your case, they are so low that you might get by with half the spindles. Would still be interesting to see the other stats from the above query though.

Also striping tempdb on the same underlying spindle is just as likely to increase latency as it is to lower it, since this may actually make tempdb access slower - a single drive still has the same moving parts, and the more files you are trying to read/write simultaneously, the worse off you'll be.

I would start with 2 files at most and see if it improves the situation or not. You may even consider leaving one file where it is and adding a second on the new drive (depending on the other activity on the original drive).

Also make sure they are sized exactly the same and they have the same autogrowth setting. As soon as one file is larger than the other, the proportional fill algorithm will only use one file. Consider using trace flag 1117 to make sure that all data files autogrow at the same time, keeping the proportional fill algorithm in check. Just note that this trace flag affects all databases - so if you have other databases with multiple data files, you'll want to make sure their autogrow settings won't cause an issue.