Re: SBS 2003 Program Files Partition

From: Markus Fuchs (m.fuchs_at_nospam.fplusp.com)
Date: 01/31/05 

Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 21:52:55 +0100

Thank you for your input, both of you.
First, let me tell you something about the server. We ordered a new FSC
Primergy server with a Pentium IV 3.0 GHz and a hardware RAID controller
(RAID 0, 1, 10). There are two 80 GB SATA hdds in the box, so we'll be using
RAID 1 for mirroring the disks.
When I was talking about different partitions I had in mind that you would
have less trouble with disk fragmentation (since the most write accesses
will be on the "file server partition") and making backups would be easier.
Well, I don't know exactly, that's why I am asking... And I don't want to
struggle with my hard disk layout later, since adjustments on partitions
when the server is running are a pain, I guess.

Markus

"MCSEGURU" wrote:
> I think I would advise against this. I don't know that you can
successfully
> get all Program Files to install to D:\ without editing the %ProgramFiles%
> environment variable before the integrated SBS setup begins (and I don't
> know how negatively this will effect other operations on the server)
>
> If you are creating these volumes (C:, D:, E:, etc...) by partitioning
> physical disks, then I don't think you are really gaining anything. Disk
> utilization and Disk I/O is the main reason I can think of to separate
files
> onto different disks. Since partitioning a disk doesn't really effect
it's
> performance characteristics with respect to I/O you are merely drawing
lines
> in your sandbox, that in the future you may want to move.
>
> If money wasn't an object, I would recommend creating a Mirror Set for the
> OS and Programs and a separate mirror set or RAID set for Data Files (user
> shares etc...) on one controller and partitioning these disks with one
> partition using the entire disk.
>
> In SBS, exchange doesn't usually grow large enough to warrant separate
space
> for itself, and additionally doesn't consume enough I/O to negatively
effect
> much, even on a slower processor server with minimal memory. However on a
> large enterprise Exchange Server I would install another Mirror Set for
your
> Exchange Database and another Mirror Set or RAID Set for your Exchange
> database logs on a completely separate controller with only one partition
> for each disk.
>
> So with all that said, OS on one disk, and Data (including exchange) on
> another with only single partitions on each is really all you need.
>
> There are some articles on how to get the data files that by default are
> written to %ProgramFiles% and move them to your Data disk.
>
>
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sbs/2003/maintain/movedata.mspx
>
> - jeff
>
>
>
>
>
> "Markus Fuchs" <m.fuchs@nospam.fplusp.com> wrote in message
> news:eP16Ni6BFHA.2624@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > Hey,
> >
> > I'll have to set up a Windows Small Business Server 2003 Standard Ed.
soon
> > and wondered how to place the "Program Files" folder on another
partition
> > than the system. Will the SBS Setup ask me where to place it or do I
have
> > to
> > make an unattended installation file/disk like on Windows 2000/XP?
> > What other parts or folders do you separate by using different
partitions?
> > Can you give me some advice?
> >
> > I thought of sth. like this:
> > C: System (Windows SBS 2003)
> > D: Program Files
> > E: Data ("File Server")
> > F: Shadow Copies (Shadow Copies from E: files)
> > G: Repositories (Subversion Repositories)
> >
> > This will be my first experience with a MS server product. I already
read
> > most of Charlie Russell's Administrator's Companion and I must admit
that
> > I'm overwhelmed by all the features SBS 2003 provides and therefore I
> > appreciate any help.
> >
> > Markus
> >
> >
>
>

Relevant Pages

  • LVM on SW RAID for sarge - success
    ... I've just had success migrating Debian Sarge to root on LVM on RAID. ... First make sure the SCSI BIOS boots from the first disk. ... I made reiserfs on all the filesystem partitions and completed the ... The remaining two disks were partitioned and used to create RAID arrays ...
    (Debian-User)
  • RE: RAID gotchas!
    ... Subject: RAID gotchas! ... Well I converted my single disk system last night into a dual disk ... My partitions were laid out as follows: ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: Migrating to Raid
    ... >> a RAID Mirroring environment. ... >mirroring in each OS so that it mirrored its own partitions... ... uses FC4 as a file server, one uses SUSE as a web server, and one is ... planning on upgrading to Win 2003 SBS from their existing NT4 setup. ...
    (alt.os.linux.suse)
  • Re: sunmanagers digest, Vol 1 #2105 - 7 msgs
    ... >This is a logical disk. ... The question is whether those pre-defined partitions ... >are because of something Sun is doing, or if its something EMC is doing. ... >> server and configuration server, image server is the same server. ...
    (SunManagers)
  • RAID gotchas!
    ... Well I converted my single disk system last night into a dual disk RAID-1 setup and preserved all my data. ... My partitions were laid out as follows: ... I kept the partition number the same as the raid partition number just because it made my life easier to keep track of everything but there is no reason it needs to match. ... Note the "missing" at the end of the command, this will allow the system to create the raid volumes since the other disk isn't available yet. ...
    (Fedora)