Re: DELL MD1000 for SBS2003???

Tech Tip: Click here to run a free scan for Windows Errors and optimize PC performance

Partitioning disks (including arrays) is overrated. It's simply a matter of how you want to organize your stuff. Two partitions on a single disk really doesn't accomplish anything, and should it turn out one is too small and another too big - then you're into a resize operation that isn't always pleasant.

Folders will organize your data just as well as partitions will.

System and binaries (program files) on c:\ (that's your raid 1 set), everything else somewhere else. In the case of small networks like these, that somewhere else can be a raid 5 set with a single partition. IMHO, you'll overly complicate things otherwise.

--
Les Connor [SBS MVP]
________________________
Get the SBS BPA here:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/940439/en-us


<compsosinc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:e0f4adc4-245c-4ce2-85d4-68dd2e1c0db9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Aug 28, 5:55 pm, "Larry Struckmeyer [SBS-MVP]" <lstruckme...@mis-
wizards.com> wrote:
Agreeing with everyone who has gone before. For ease of management of the
OS, RAID1 for the OS, RAID5 for the data, partitioned however your
experience tells you, and a hot spare.

An argument can be made for three sets of RAID1, as you get very easy
management and easy drive swaps. Remember that a RAID5 performs badly when
a drive fails, so the hot spare is a great help. You need to replace any
failed drive as soon as you possibly can, as the loss of the second drive
will mean the loss of the date on the set.

The downside of RAID1 is that one half of the drive space committed to the
array is lost. On the other hand, there is no sense to commit three drives
to achieve the same amount of useable space or a bigger volume that will go
largely unused.

UPS on the overall box, battery on the RAID card.

-Larry

"Les Connor [SBS MVP]" <les.con...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:OlJxgiTCJHA.4316@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



> In my case, no - all storage is 'in the box', in all cases.

> Given the size of your network and the data size you indicate, I'd
> personally not look beyond a single box.

> --
> Les Connor [SBS MVP]
> ________________________
> Get the SBS BPA here:
>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/940439/en-us

> <compsos...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:dea0f78f-3c28-403f-991c-504841196fa2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On Aug 28, 1:33 pm, "Les Connor [SBS MVP]" <les.con...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>> I agree, mostly.

>> But I do like a two drive mirrored set for the OS, and raid 5 for the
>> balance, with a global hotspare. I don't have it everywhere, but it's
>> great
>> peace of mind where I do :-).

>> --
>> Les Connor [SBS MVP]
>> ________________________
>> Get the SBS BPA here:http://support.microsoft.com/kb/940439/en-us

>> "Dave Nickason [SBS MVP]" <gwdib...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>> messagenews:OR$DDATCJHA.2264@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>> > IMO the MD1000 is drastically overkill. I'm running on a 2900 by >> > itself
>> > with 8 drives, and the only reason I upgraded from 6 drives was >> > because
>> > it
>> > was the fastest way for me to deal with what turned out to have been >> > a
>> > bad
>> > decision about partitioning.

>> > Personally, I'd get the appropriate number of matching drives, plus a
>> > hot
>> > spare. I'd put the whole thing in a single RAID 5 array with 3
>> > partitions - 30 GB OS, one for Exchange at about double the size you
>> > think
>> > you need, and the balance for data.

>> > I have about 22 users and about 100 GB of data on my 2900, and my >> > Dell
>> > rep
>> > ridiculed me for buying such a beefy server. I believe that >> > over-buying
>> > hardware has several advantages as long as you're within your >> > budget -
>> > more reliable, future proofing, etc. and I believe the 2900 is the
>> > minimum
>> > if you want redundant power. But that MD1000 really seems over the >> > top
>> > to
>> > me. And my most compelling argument against getting it now - you can
>> > add
>> > it any time if you change your mind.

>> > <compsos...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >news:45bce238-0d83-47ac-87ca-48ad684f3346@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> We are building a new 2003 SBS Server solution to replace our >> >> failing
>> >> SBS2000 box - see previous post today concerning RAID, etc

>> >> We have been speaking to Dell about a solution and have a
>> >> recommendation for a PowerEdge2900 with MD1000 attached. Here is the
>> >> config:

>> >> PE2900 - has RAID 1 ( using (2) 73GB 15K drives) - for OS only using
>> >> PERC 6/i controller.

>> >> M1000 - has a total of 7 drives (146GB 15K) - this will have (2) >> >> RAID
>> >> 5s (3 drives each) with (1) Hot Spare.

>> >> 1. Has anyone out there used the MD1000 with SBS2003 Premium?

>> >> 2. If the about is acceptable, what partitioning would you recommend
>> >> for Exchange, SQL (not currently used in SBS2000, CAD data --need
>> >> great perforamnce for these files)?

>> >> We only house 45GB of data now and only grow 4GB per year. Have 5-10
>> >> users hitting DC, Exchange, files. Exchange 2000 is at 14GB after 6
>> >> years.

>> >> Otherwise we are considering just the 2900 III with similar config >> >> and
>> >> guidance from replies on our previous post today..

>> >> Thanks- Hide quoted text -

>> - Show quoted text -

> Have you implemented the Powervault storage attached to a Server
> (Dell, or otherwise)?- 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!

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Replacing a raid 5 controller with different card
    ... at least for the part not depending on S-ATA or the RAID ... drives present to the OS at the bios level. ... raid controller and you make an array based on the number of drives ... In the operating system you make partitions. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: Migrating to Raid
    ... RAID would do... ... It is unclear whether you want to migrate the two existing 200GB drives into ... I note you do not have shared partitions for /home /usr etc. in your ... server - and a cheap box for that would cost less than your RAID card! ...
    (alt.os.linux.suse)
  • Re: Installing Exchange for performance
    ... > Not sure what you mean by 4 pairs of mirrored RAID drives... ... > mirroring offers better performance because of sequential writes. ... >> needs partitions for the SMTP queues, ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.setup)
  • Re: Mover SQL server
    ... expansion of C my recommendation is to (providing this is hardware Raid) ... expand the partitions on Imaging. ... repartition (or possibly replace the hard drives with a bigger ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: New install of SBS and where to put SQL and exchange
    ... Both raid arrays are physically different, ... SBS is one busy machine, exchange and sql, are ... Partitions are good for organizing data and splitting things up to make data ... drives with a multi-channel RAID controller? ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)