Re: Replacing SBS2000 - Need Guidance

Yes, I'd actually more probably put the Exch/SQL databases on the RAID5. The
RAID1 would actually be expected to give better performance at either random
reads or writes (forget which) vs a 4HDD RAID5.

I'm actually pretty sure a case could be made for:
RAID1: P1, OS. P2 'mainly static' (WSUS, \clientapps) + Exch/SQL logs.
RAID5: 6HDDs. P1, 2nd swapfile, Exch/SQL DB's. P2, DATA.
hotspare

Which would benefit from the greater number of drives in the RAID5 and also
satisfy the idea of separation of DB vs logs.

The actual layout is as much 'art' as 'science', and the size and %activity
to each 'set of spindles' and/or partition, the 'manner' in which each is
accessed, is particular to the individual scenario.

Unfortunately, SBS is doing so much that many of the 'obvious rules' that
apply to systems dedicated to each SBS component do not necessarily apply to
SBS itself. Exchange should not be a DC nor fileserver. We have a few SQL
(express, MSDE, whatever) instances. etc...

Throw it together, test for a while, throw it together in a different manner
and test again, and again, also isn't really possible. Watch the lights and
listen to the drives, doesn't matter how you configure SBS, she's busy.

<compsosinc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:a817570d-aa50-4375-b334-06280a29dd72@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Aug 28, 7:10 pm, compsos...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Aug 28, 6:58 pm, "SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <n...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





with 9 drives I'd be more likely to get all of same size and:
(note: the 73's are probably substantially more than 50% of the cost of
the
146's)

RAID1: Partition 1, C: (root/boot), 40-50GB. P2, rest, WSUS and
\Clientapps,
anything else that is 'mostly static'.
RAID1: 2nd swapfile, Exch and SQL logs. Maybe a 2nd partition, not sure
what
I'd use it for, maybe Exch/SQL but this would actually 'break' the
'rule'
about logs and databases on separate spindles.
RAID5: 4HDD's. DATA. Probably a partition for Exch/SQL databases and 2nd
partition.
Global hotspare.

<compsos...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:aa954c3c-b28a-4b8a-a76d-cfde60eecbe0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Aug 27, 9:26 pm, "SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <n...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

with those data requirements a couple of 146GB 15K SCSI 320(or maybe
SAS)
drives in RAID1, with a 3rd drive as hotspare, would seem sufficient.

40GB OS partition and 'the rest' for data.

SBS 2003 with Exchange 2003 SP2 would allow that ExchDB to grow to
75GB,
and
15K SCSI would allow fast operation for both Exch and file storage
(your
CAD
files).

<compsos...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:7cb48bc6-b4ce-4df8-838b-3eb6c525e252@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Aug 27, 6:14 pm, "SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <n...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I would definitely upgrade to SBS 2003 Premium to gain the bits you
don't
have (RWW, Sharepoint Team Services) but whether I then got SA in
order
to
go to SBS2008 is another story. If the box wasn't failing and the
eventual
aim was to go to SBS2008 I wouldn't do 2003 in between, no inplace
upgrade
2003-2008 (as 2008 is x64 only. I don't like inplace upgrades
anyway).

If I'm right SolidWorks can be backended by SQL, right? If so a
single
box
running SBS2003 Premium would do, in SBS2008 Premium SQL resides on
a
2nd
box (windows and SQL license included). Installation of SQL to the
SBS2008
itself is not supported. I am not suggesting this is a bad thing, it
is
just
something that needs consideration and particularly in this case may
be
considered advantageous.

SBS2003 is limited to 4GB RAM max (same as SBS2000), while SBS 2008
will
not
install on a box with less than 4GB. Again, not a bad thing but
something
that has to be considered. RAM's cheap as chips.

I cannot comment on the Exch 2000-2007, haven't looked at it.

re RAID: I'd look at the total required storage (including expected
growth)
and partitioning scheme and base my layout on that, so without
hearing
what
you require I can't really say much.

If the total required capacity could be easily covered by HDD*2 I
would
simply install a single RAID5 array consisting of 3 drives in array
plus
hotspare (4*HDD).

There's a nice layout with 6 drives (all of same size):
RAID1: (2*HDD) Partition 1 for OS and P2 for mostly static data
(\clientapps
and WSUSFiles).
RAID5: (3*HDD) P1 for an additional swapfile and maybe the Exchange
DBs,
P2
for DATA
and a single HDD as 'global hotspare'.

The possibilities for HDDs are numerous. Discussion _quite a while
ago
now_
had an 'optimally' configured SBS with either 12 or 14 drives spread
across
2*duplexed RAID controllers (4 controllers total). Someone (Russ?)
actually
had a system with 10/12 drives (but if I remember right no hotspare,
tchh
tchh).

I think you will be pleased with the improvements 2000 to either
2003 or
2008 but if I was looking to eventually go to 2008, and could hold
out,
I
would.

<compsos...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:7cc7ebc2-57f4-4744-b817-b6de68ee486d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

We need to replace our SBS2000 Server with a new one. It has not
failed yet, but we are starting to experience problems and think 1
of
the drives is failing in our 5/0 RAID. At any rate we need to
replace
it for other obvious reasons. Since SBS2008 is not due for release
until November we need to discuss our options. We do not
necessarily
need ISA Server as we have used the Default config since owning
this
SBS2000 box. Our current SBS2000 box is also a file Server for
Quickbooks and Solidworks files.

Questions:
1) We are think we could just buy 2008 OS and run Exchange 2007 on
it
also? And subsequently not purchase/upgrade to SBS2008?

--or, are we better off with SBS2003 Premium with Software
Assurance?

2) What is a good document to read for migrating from Exchange
2000 to
Exchange 2007?

3) What are the feeling on RAID configurations --what level for
what
purpose --ie RAID 1 for OS/Server apps? RAID 5 or 5/0 for data?

Note... we are concerned with performance issues for the
Solidworks/
CAD files

4) What are the memory limitations on SBS2003 and windows 2008?

Thanks- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thank you so much..sorry to be vague but under the gun I feel...for
some reason I thought EXCH2007 was in SBS2003...so going from 2000 to
2003 here. Thanks for the RAID suggestions ..saw this elsewhere too.
Our Exchange is almost at 15GB (reaching limit) and data is at 30GB.
Growth is about 3-4GB/year- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thanks for the feedback. Versus your suggestion for RAID, what about
this total of 9 drives:

RAID1 (2x73GB drives) = for OS only = with 1 partition

RAID5 (3x146GB drives) = for Exchange, potential SQL, client apps =
with 2 partitions--1 for EXCH, 1 for SQL

RAID5 (3x146GB drives) = for Data = with 1 partition = for CAD files,
word docs OR 2 partitions 1 for each use???

1 HOT GLOBAL spare for both RAID5s

Does anyone see a performance issue or enhancement with this config?

Thanks!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ok..we will stick with this thread..had someone helping me and we
copied to wrong thread.

Anyway, why not RAID 5 for Exchange too?? Why is RAID 1 better?
Thought RAID 1 would be a performance hit...

And you are right about the 73GBs ...will do all 146s- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh..and can't we direct the Exhange DB to the DATA partition within
the RAID5...again performance


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: RAID 1 drives and mirroring of data for backup question
    ... I reread the message and his RAID isn't ... > OP was that the 2nd partition existed, it just had nothing on it. ... > "Frank McCallister SBS MVP" wrote in message ... >>>I have a question about RAID 1 drives. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: questions on partitions for exchange
    ... If your backup is using the exchange backup API, ... build process that starts with a FAT partition and then converts it to NTFS. ... The second local RAID 1 with the SMTP is fine if this is not a cluster. ... Because of the limitation on the number of physical drives, ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.setup)
  • Re: A Problem With Replacing a Windows XP Computer Systems Disk Drives
    ... transfer a raid array from one set of drives to another. ... OS: Windows XP Home ... Four IDE 250GB drives in two Raid 0 Arrays ... Using the software provide by Seagate to copy the boot partition was ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware)
  • Re: RAID, partitioning and imaging
    ... Any partition created will be mirrored / identical in your second raid drive ... You are aware that raid 1 is a mirror?, and as such you should be able to ... mirror, and so the problem would exist on both drives, so ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Partition Question
    ... I'm also setting up a SBS Server but with SAS 6 drives. ... Is there any performance benfits in having the OS + Exchange & SQL Logs on ... RAID 1 and Exchange/SQL/user Data on RAID 5? ... I am planning a partition scheme that looks like this: ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
Loading