Re: SBS2003 Partitioning

Gosh !
I feel I have been misunderstood and slighted a little too :( I would never
sell a server to a customer to maximise billing hours.

I wasn't really offering the HP example for it's memory capacity or proposed
users - rather the fact that it had a rather complicated partitioning
arrangement. I realise that 50 users on this "PC" is ridiculous. I will
ensure that I post information with what I intend to illustrate in future.

I realise that capacity is all down to the business that you are selling to
and in this case the capacity is just fine. It may be a PC rather than a
server but it is giving a *small* business the benefits that of SBS2003 with
remote email etc. It is only hosting 5 accounts.

I just wanted to understand best practice for partitioning in respect of
pagefiles on seperate partitions and exchange stores/logs etc.
I'll take it from the received replies that this is not possible due to
personal experiences so I will carry on as I was which works just fine
anyway.





"MSR Consulting SBS Support" <support@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:admin.2iz5ua@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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: SBS2003 Partitioning
    ... It doesn't matter how small the business is it is a bad practice to sell a workstation for use as a server. ... Businesses come to rely on a server very quickly and within a matter of months may no longer be able to function effectively if the server goes down. ... There is no real advantage to moving the page file from the system partition in a small server with one drive/array, and yes it's a good idea to keep Exchange and SQL on separate partitions but given the size of drive you intend on using probably two partitions, at most three, is your best option. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: Best practices for validation (discussion)
    ... Here are some of my experiences, mostly in the context of rich or smart ... In pretty much every business application I've worked with I've ended up ... This consists of things like simple validation and also things like ... simply is not an option to do a server round-trip every time you want to do ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.distributed_apps)
  • Re: iSCSI
    ... Ich habe schon Daten auf der Partition drauf. ... anderen Server Zugriff auf diese Partition gebe, ... eine Datei erzeuge, dann sieht diese Datei der andere Server nicht. ... Small Business Specialist Partner Area Lead | SBSC PAL ...
    (microsoft.public.de.german.windows.server.general)
  • multi-boot system
    ... when I install on a second ... partition of my "Win XP Pro"-Computer the Small Business ... Server? ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: Drive C full
    ... I sis use it on 2003 server operating system.. ... screw up the partition table.. ... that used small business server, ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.file_system)