Re: SBS2003 Partitioning


Sorry, I can't resist a good troll so I'll throw in my .02 (quid,cents,
or {insert monetary equiv. here} take your pick if we've decided to be
geographically sensitive here ;) )

The reason there is no hard and fast rule is that to do so would be
ludicrous. At the time of install if you aren't taking into account
that specific businesses circumstances then you aren't doing your job.
Add to that the variables on your server capabilities, usage patterns of
the biz involved, etc, etc, etc and you've got yourself a good math
equation of 'right answers'. You said you wanted to get the 'experts'
views, but then want manufacturer articles, etc. to back up those
views. That makes the assumption (wrong in my opinion) that those
publishers can take into consideration all variables when publishing
their documents. They have to publish *something*, but by necessity
will do so around lowest common denominators, their own prejudices,
etc. If everything was laid out in a nice neat little package there
would be no need for more than one 'expert' in the first place. All
manufacturers would pre-configure systems the same way. There would be
no debate.

Arthus makes the statement that 'in his experience' businesses struggle
to fill up 250 GB of space, much less 80. But in my experience my
clients couldn't even get *started* with a 80Gb system. Does that make
one of us wrong? Nope, just makes our experiences different.

Another likes SATA drives. I only use SCSI for the server drives (but
do use eSATA for D2D backups). Does that mean that we couldn't throw
specs at each other all day long about which is better? OK, great, I
win the argument if we're just talking about on paper specs, but what
about when he adds to the argument the price/performance ratio? I'd
lose hands down. So who is right? It's a rediculous question that
only us geeks could find the time to try and answer in such minutiae.

In regards to moving or creating additional paging files....this would
depend upon your configuration. I can point you to articles (by MS,
etc.) telling you to do so to increase performance. But wouldn't that
just lead you to ask 'why'? I mean the theory behind all of this is
simple enough right? Offload and spread IO amongst your fastest drives
and away from the places where you need IO speed the most. But whether
or not to do so and where becomes clear only when looking at a specific
machine, it's IO config, and the applications running on it. So the
best one can do is say the 'best practice' is to do just that. It
can't say 'always' do it, or 'never' do it.

On top of everything else, SBS brings a fairly unique set of
circumstances in that it does some things that in most cases you would
never find elsewhere. Namely running multiple server applications on a
domain controller. So now the variable mix is huge.

As far as I'm concerned about partitions, I'd be perfectly happy with a
single partition....*if* I could setup a RAID config the way I would
like to. But to do it the way I'd like would require some pretty heavy
RAID dollars that most small businesses do not have or would be better
spent elsewhere. That has nothing to do with 'technology' or 'best
practices', just the reality of business. I'm pretty sure most
publications on the topic are not going to tell me "The best way to do
it is x, but don't do that, instead you should spend your money on y
because you could put more widgets in your inventory and increase your
bottom line"

The tools you put into place also effect your desired configuration.
We use defrag software that specifically deals with Exchange
(PerfectDisk), so that impacts how we take into account defragmentation
issues like you mentioned (although my personal opinion is that's not as
big a reason for putting on separate spindle as performance would be.
If the partition is on the same set of spindles then I could care
less). MS can't assume that you're using *anything* other than their
product, so wouldn't any articles they publish on the topic mean
nothing to me in that situation?

I think for OS partition sizing the best you can do in regards to a
blanket statement is to look at OS sizes, increase rates of that size
due to updates, service packs, etc., localizing a i386 directory,
paging file, temp space, and retention of uninstall files. With all of
that factored in you should plan on a minimum of 25Gig on the system
partition to last you the lifetime of SBS 2003 if you offload all other
functions to another partition. Considering the fact that you always
want to allow for a minimum amount of free space for defragmentation,
shadow copy, and error correction over the drives lifetimes to function
well that would be the bare minimum for a "set it and forget it"
installation. Any smaller and you should be prepared to have to free
up some space in a year or so.

The bottom line is that these are "preferences" built upon individuals
"experiences" and the circumstances of an individual setup. Hopefully
those preferences are based on solid information. Where one choice is
not greatly different than another then take your pick as to which you
want to follow. If you want opinions on a specific setup, then we'd
need to know the needs, budgets, and circumstances of the situation to
provide anything more than generalities. If you want comments on how
you are thinking of setting up a system, we'd need to know your ideas
in addition to the above. If you want blanket statements about what is
right and wrong, you need a long life, a lot of time on your hands, and
someone who knows the location of that guru at the top of the mountain.


--
admin

Matt Ridings - MSR Consulting
------------------------------------------------------------------------
admin's Profile: http://forums.msrportal.com/member.php?userid=1
View this thread: http://forums.msrportal.com/showthread.php?t=14395

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: boot.ini and msconfig cant find 2nd boot partition ?
    ... Your boot.ini for the configuration of HDs that you have is correct. ... Is HD3's partition #1 a Primary partition? ... I then trimmed out all the unneeded fat from the cloned cloned C: partition which is now on the new hd, because I want to use it as a BACKUP boot partition, where I can copy the windows folder to from time to time and if something ever happens to the real C: I can boot from the other one and restore the core system stuff or a whole backup if need be. ... (((Is there no way to get a list of how the system seems the drives in the same format as boot.ini uses? ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: RAID 1 drives and mirroring of data for backup question
    ... Call Dell, ... > Dell recommends at least a RAID 1 configuration for all servers in order ... > drives, but I am puzzled about the way the first drive is partitioned. ... > the the primary drive, there are two partitions, one partition of 12 GB ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: I cannot save changes made to word files
    ... I have been working on this configuration since 2 yrs ... Your copy of Word is misbehaving and not saving the changes you made, ... Given that "My desktop is partitioned into 2 drives" doesn't make sense ... can partition a drive; the desktop you see at any one time is a folder on ...
    (microsoft.public.word.docmanagement)
  • Re: Hard Drive Configuration help!
    ... Partitioning is a convenience, security, configuration and backup issue. ... Multiple drives beyong just a mirror of a single drive is a performance ... >> setup for my server. ... >> partition and a partition for program and data. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: Dual Boot Instructions
    ... If "drive" means a single partition or logical drive, then the negatives you've heard are very true. ... But if "drive" means a physical hard disk drive, then I'm in big trouble because I have SIX versions of Windows installed on my 1 TB Disk 1, my second HDD! ... The name stuck when we added hard disk drives, ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices)
Loading