Re: SBS 2003 Partition Questions
From: Dave Nickason [SBS MVP] (gwdibble_at_NOSPAM.frontiernet.net)
Date: 12/10/04
- Next message: Jeremy Gollehon: "Does Exchange SP1 solve public folders IPM.Note instead of IPM.Post (817809) problem?"
- Previous message: Wesley Kendall [MSFT]: "Re: Clients Not Able To Join Domain"
- In reply to: Richard Steele: "SBS 2003 Partition Questions"
- Next in thread: Richard Steele: "Re: SBS 2003 Partition Questions"
- Reply: Richard Steele: "Re: SBS 2003 Partition Questions"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 14:25:23 -0500
Just my own opinion, but I'm moving my SBS to new hardware this spring so
I've been thinking about this. I'm going to go with a 20 gb C partition for
the OS. This is way overkill, so I can't imagine ever running low on space
there. My current C is on an 8 gb partition with about 1.5 or 2 free.
I'm planning to have about 40 gb for Exchange. I want the Exchange data on
its own partition so other data can't cramp Exchange's space. This will
allow for 2x16gb stores plus log files and a little free space. My Exchange
data is only around 7 gb now, so again overkill.
The rest of the space will be for D, and will be primarily user data, plus
volume shadow copies of the user data and anything else necessary, including
3rd party apps and their data. I don't plan to run much more than SBS on
this box, but at the least it'll have AV and backup.
"Richard Steele" <RichardSteele@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:08131BA6-DBA0-43DF-9193-29621FAA59F6@microsoft.com...
> We will be setting up a new SBS 2003 shortly on a new Dell 2850 server
> using
> hardware Raid 5.
>
> One of the reasons we purchased a new server was that the old Proliant
> 1600
> Raid 5 was running out of disk space. It had been set up with 3 different
> partitions using best practices recommendations of C: system files (4
> gigs),
> E: Exchange Server (4 gigs), F: Company Data (9 gigs).
>
> We started running out of space on several of the virtual drives and had
> to
> shuffle files around which was a lot of trouble. We off-loaded tons of
> image
> files to local computers in order to free up space.
>
> Though we are getting 142 gig SCSI drives (total of 284 gigs of space vs
> 18
> gigs!), part of me is still hesitant to break of the server into 3 volumes
> because of my past disk space problems and file shuffle. We currently have
> 11
> workstations and I haven't been convinced (but am willing to be) that the
> server would run faster on a RAID 5 machine with separate volumes for the
> server and exchange.
>
> Any insight or recommendations would be greatly appreciated.
>
- Next message: Jeremy Gollehon: "Does Exchange SP1 solve public folders IPM.Note instead of IPM.Post (817809) problem?"
- Previous message: Wesley Kendall [MSFT]: "Re: Clients Not Able To Join Domain"
- In reply to: Richard Steele: "SBS 2003 Partition Questions"
- Next in thread: Richard Steele: "Re: SBS 2003 Partition Questions"
- Reply: Richard Steele: "Re: SBS 2003 Partition Questions"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
