gsoutherland
asked on
Question about RAID and Terminal Server
We currently are running a RAID 5 Setup on our Poweredge 2850 Terminal Server. I am looking at ordering new replacement server for the 2850. I was curious is RAID 5 or RAID 1 the way to go? I also run a SQLSERVER and would like to know same for it. Basically what is going to give me the best performance with the least downtime. Thanks!!
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
RAID 10 is not a bad option but you lose half the available space of the drives you put in it. The primary reason anyone goes for a RAID 10 is speed. For a SQL server, unless you have *alot* of continuous access, it would likely be unnecessary. Whether or not it's worth going for just depends on how much the drives will be accessed.
ASKER
So what if I did Raid 1 with 2x73gb drives for my OS Partition and then a Raid 5 with 3x500gb drives for my data which would give me 1tb for my data. So many options to choose. I guess I could also look at getting another fileserver instead of packing my terminal server with data on the raid 5 drive.
That's not a bad option, though I think you'll be hard pressed to find 500GB SCSI standard drives.
Now the question is how many users will be connecting? What other roles will the server be involved in? It sounds like it will be your primary server. There is no need to have a separate raid for your OS and data if you're utalizing RAID 1, 5, or 10. Overkill. Just partition it and you'll still have your layer of redundancy. akirhol is right, good luck finding a non astronomically priced 500GB SCSi set.
"akirhol is right, good luck finding a non astronomically priced 500GB SCSi set."
They also don't exist. :)
300GB is as high as the SCSI standard goes as far as I know. There are some 500GB SAS drives, but while the communication standard is SCSI the internals of the drive is more like a SATA drive, having an RPM of 7200.
They also don't exist. :)
300GB is as high as the SCSI standard goes as far as I know. There are some 500GB SAS drives, but while the communication standard is SCSI the internals of the drive is more like a SATA drive, having an RPM of 7200.
ASKER
sorry bout the 500 was just using example... how bout 3x146gb !!
Well my current setup is I have a old pe 1300 that is my domainserver just basically does active directory and dns.
I have a SQL Server pe 2850 4gb dual xeon proc running raid 5 with 4x73gb one is hot spare
the Terminal Server I currently have is exactly like the sql server.
My Sql Server is doing basically just that.. SQL apps
My Terminal server at the moment is hosting about 40 users and also is my fileserver that i share documents and what not on.
The reason for my upgrade is if something was to happen to one of my servers i have no backup plan atm. I was wanting to purchase another server and have it in house in case something was to happend to my sql or terminal server i could just do quick install of whichever is down and restore my data and get users back up as quick as possible. I know its not always quick but thats my goal. I'm looking for virtually no downtime, but in the real world this doesn't happen on a small scale like us. We have 84 users in all that hit the SQL server, but only about half come in on the terminal server via pt. to pt. T1.
Sorry if long winded, just trying to figure out the best setup before I go and spend a lot of wasted money.
I should probably look at changing my domainserver as well. its not even raided and lord knows the mess I would have if it was to go. And its my oldest server.
Well my current setup is I have a old pe 1300 that is my domainserver just basically does active directory and dns.
I have a SQL Server pe 2850 4gb dual xeon proc running raid 5 with 4x73gb one is hot spare
the Terminal Server I currently have is exactly like the sql server.
My Sql Server is doing basically just that.. SQL apps
My Terminal server at the moment is hosting about 40 users and also is my fileserver that i share documents and what not on.
The reason for my upgrade is if something was to happen to one of my servers i have no backup plan atm. I was wanting to purchase another server and have it in house in case something was to happend to my sql or terminal server i could just do quick install of whichever is down and restore my data and get users back up as quick as possible. I know its not always quick but thats my goal. I'm looking for virtually no downtime, but in the real world this doesn't happen on a small scale like us. We have 84 users in all that hit the SQL server, but only about half come in on the terminal server via pt. to pt. T1.
Sorry if long winded, just trying to figure out the best setup before I go and spend a lot of wasted money.
I should probably look at changing my domainserver as well. its not even raided and lord knows the mess I would have if it was to go. And its my oldest server.
Now you're getting into server clustering and should take that question to a new thread please. It's offtopic. I'm sure there are other experts willing to suggest excellent methods of entire server mirroring, clustering, etc. I hope we were able to better assist you with making a decision with your RAID options.
Having a standby server has nothing to do with clustering, I'm not sure what Addihul is talking about.
Regarding Active Directory, you should promote your other servers to domain controllers as well. It's a very low resource utilization role and the ability to lose a DC without losing your AD is invaluable.
For 84 users, a standard RAID 5 will likely be fine. But again, it depends on the utilization.
Regarding Active Directory, you should promote your other servers to domain controllers as well. It's a very low resource utilization role and the ability to lose a DC without losing your AD is invaluable.
For 84 users, a standard RAID 5 will likely be fine. But again, it depends on the utilization.
ASKER
yes i have not mentioned clustering... so you telling me I should run all my servers as DC's? I have nother DC offsite that syncs with this one via pt. to pt. T1 So basically 2 dcs in my environment. I never thought of making them all DCs
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
Ok so now i'm thinking you got me on track!! I'm going to probably order one more server.
PE 2950 III have two quad core xeons in it, 4 GB ram, and a Raid 5 3x146gb and maybe hotspare. Partition the OS on the Raid 5 at maybe 30gb and the rest for data. Then I'll move my current Terminal Server to it just to be on the new server and take my old terminal server and reformat it and make it a Backup / File / DC server. That gives me new terminal server and extra DC and a place to do my backups and files.
I think i'm on track now, but I appreciate all the help and knowledge. Any other suggestions feel free to share!!!!
PE 2950 III have two quad core xeons in it, 4 GB ram, and a Raid 5 3x146gb and maybe hotspare. Partition the OS on the Raid 5 at maybe 30gb and the rest for data. Then I'll move my current Terminal Server to it just to be on the new server and take my old terminal server and reformat it and make it a Backup / File / DC server. That gives me new terminal server and extra DC and a place to do my backups and files.
I think i'm on track now, but I appreciate all the help and knowledge. Any other suggestions feel free to share!!!!
ASKER