Re: Partitioning a RAID 1 / RAID 5 box
- From: "SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <not@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:16:45 +1100
I'd probably do similarly if I had that number of drives (go the RAID1 and
RAID5 sets).
I don't consider 36GB large enough to bother partitioning. Brandy's
suggestion to partition as 15/15 is valid, and I can see where Fisheye is
heading with the splits he mentions, but I probably wouldn't do it. A single
36GB partition would allow you to install all SBS components (OS+Programs)
into the partition. It is large enough to hold your paging file, basically
the whole kit. As the drive is really a RAID 1 array you get a subtle bonus
from this, the ability to disconnect one of the drives before performing any
major work on the box (Service pack, upgrades, whatever. Not your regular
patching, but more significant items). Should the work cause a problem you
can, in most cases, remove the now damaged installation and fallback to the
drive you disconnected.
One reason I don't consider 36 large enough is because you end up maybe a
little tight on the OS partition or have a fair sized OS part and a small
additional partition. Though you may get some 'organisational' benefits any
performance benefit will be marginal, if it is indeed beneficial. You're
actually making the drive heads move more than it would on a single
partition.
I also wouldn't bother dividing the RAID5 up, just run it as a single
partition to hold all DATA. Some would suggest putting the Exchange database
onto it's own partition, I see no benefit in doing so, most of the benefits
discussed in relation to Exchange assume the partition is on it's own
spindles (drives, seperate RAID array).
NOTE: if all these drives (5 in use, 1 hotspare) are on the same SCSI
channel the channel will be throughput saturated before the drives are. I
don't consider this a problem, just wanted to mention it.
NOTE2: I've heard discussion about performance dropping if a single
controller is asked to support two different RAID types. The argument went
along the lines of 'yep, RAID1 transaction, no sweat, whoops here comes a
RAID5 transaction, gotta change gear, RAID1 change gear again, RAID5 change
again, etc...'. The discussion was inconclusive and it was pointed out that
different controllers may (or not) handle it differently.
If you've not yet committed you may be able to lay that discussion to rest,
at least in respect of your equipment. You may find that you get better
overall performance by committing to a single RAID5 array.
"Dave" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dc6dneGrD7n8l-DeRVn-hQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>I am just in the process of installing my first server for my business. I
>am looking for some recommendations on how to partition my drives. I've
>spent some time reading previous posts in this group on partitioning, and
>it seems the general consensus is that there is no one "right" answer and
>it's up the individual and their own personal preferences.
>
>
>
> However, if the server is setup with a RAID 1 and RAID 5 array (as my
> server is), would that effect how the server should be partitioned? I will
> be using SBS2003 Premium with ISA. I will have light use of Exchange, and
> heavy use of a SQL database. Should I have *only* the OS on the RAID 1 in
> one partition, with no log files, no apps, etc, and then everything else
> on the multi-partitioned RAID 5 array? My RAID 1 array is 2x36 GB and my
> RAID5 is 3x36 GB, with one global hot spare.
>
>
>
> Your feedback would be greatly appreciated.
>
>
>
> - Dave
>
>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Partitioning a RAID 1 / RAID 5 box
- From: Dave
- Re: Partitioning a RAID 1 / RAID 5 box
- References:
- Partitioning a RAID 1 / RAID 5 box
- From: Dave
- Partitioning a RAID 1 / RAID 5 box
- Prev by Date: RE: Loading the profile - takes a long time to load
- Next by Date: Re: Using a NAS Server with SBS2003
- Previous by thread: Re: Partitioning a RAID 1 / RAID 5 box
- Next by thread: Re: Partitioning a RAID 1 / RAID 5 box
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
