asked on
Raid configuration and driver partitioning
Hello and thank you for your attention to this matter. Your input and insight is appreciated.
I'm in the process of configuring a serve for a client and i'm not sure what sort of raid to use. This server will act as a domain controller, exchange and file server. There are 12 wks. and about 20 users. I'm certain that for the OS partition (ms sbs 2008) i will set up raid1 for redundancy(2x160gb).
For the Data storage i'm not certain on what to use. I was thinking to set up another Raid1 ????
I'm also not certain on which controller to use. Any recommendations? These are the spces i get to choose from.
Also any recommendations on partitions sizes? I was going to use the whole 160gb or maybe even 80gb since we most likely will image the driver using Acronis.
Please keep in mind that cost is a factor. Thank you for your time and expertise. I appreciate your help.. Thank you again.
![dell config1]()
![dell config2]()
I'm in the process of configuring a serve for a client and i'm not sure what sort of raid to use. This server will act as a domain controller, exchange and file server. There are 12 wks. and about 20 users. I'm certain that for the OS partition (ms sbs 2008) i will set up raid1 for redundancy(2x160gb).
For the Data storage i'm not certain on what to use. I was thinking to set up another Raid1 ????
I'm also not certain on which controller to use. Any recommendations? These are the spces i get to choose from.
Also any recommendations on partitions sizes? I was going to use the whole 160gb or maybe even 80gb since we most likely will image the driver using Acronis.
Please keep in mind that cost is a factor. Thank you for your time and expertise. I appreciate your help.. Thank you again.
Server HardwareSBSStorageRAID
Last Comment
bpl5000
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
THIS SOLUTION ONLY AVAILABLE TO MEMBERS.
View this solution by signing up for a free trial.
Members can start a 7-Day free trial and enjoy unlimited access to the platform.
choose at least a 4 drive raid 10 for data drive i think the perc 6ir only does raid1. the 6ir will do raid 10
if you can afford it, do choose sas scsi over sata.
for sbs 2008 - 8 gigs of ram or more - sql server chews up alot
if you can afford it, do choose sas scsi over sata.
for sbs 2008 - 8 gigs of ram or more - sql server chews up alot
SOLUTION
THIS SOLUTION ONLY AVAILABLE TO MEMBERS.
View this solution by signing up for a free trial.
Members can start a 7-Day free trial and enjoy unlimited access to the platform.
Correction ... S300 will do a RAID 10 in addition to 0,1, but SAS 6/iR will not. All will take SAS and SATA, SATA giving you more GB for your buck, and SAS more performance/reliability, so decide on whether you need faster drives or more drive space.
SOLUTION
THIS SOLUTION ONLY AVAILABLE TO MEMBERS.
View this solution by signing up for a free trial.
Members can start a 7-Day free trial and enjoy unlimited access to the platform.
SOLUTION
THIS SOLUTION ONLY AVAILABLE TO MEMBERS.
View this solution by signing up for a free trial.
Members can start a 7-Day free trial and enjoy unlimited access to the platform.
@ those who call for raid 1 for os:
this is old think - when a raid set was counted on for failure- you needed the os to recover from a raid failure - it just doesn't happen anymore.
with hyper v the old raid data drives are folders that you back up and restore - so the only raid set you really need is the one that takes care of the os. this can be covered with a partition.
this is old think - when a raid set was counted on for failure- you needed the os to recover from a raid failure - it just doesn't happen anymore.
with hyper v the old raid data drives are folders that you back up and restore - so the only raid set you really need is the one that takes care of the os. this can be covered with a partition.
bpl - what makes you think a PERC 6/i is not available on this model? It clearly is.
@PowerEdgeTech - Of course you are right... I was looking at the choices for primary controller, but I see now that he doesn't have the option because he has SAS 6/iR chosen for the HHD configuration. I would definitely choose the 6/i.
We use the 6i with Acronis, although we do have our own boot CD. The only reason I like Acronis is because we can put it on our own boot CD and not have to install it on systems. This is very useful on workstations. With Backup Exec, you cannot boot from a CD and do a backup. You can boot from a CD and do a restore, but not a backup. Obviously in this case you would want to have the backup software installed on the server so I would go with Symantec Backup Exec System Recovery Server because, in my opinion, it's a better product with better support. Just make sure you don't confuse this product with Symantec Backup Exec for Windows Server, they are too very different products.
@Greg Hejl. I'm surprised to hear that raid failures do not happen anymore. I'm assuming when you say raid failures, you mean hard drives failing because that's the reason raid sets are used. Hard drive failures still do happen... I had it happen just a month ago and if the drives were not raided, I would have had a fun Sunday afternoon restoring the server. Instead, I came in on Monday and plugged in a new drive.
As for Hyper-V, you still should have your hypervisor installed on raided drives (most likely raid 1). Otherwise, on some Sunday afternoon when you're on vacation in the mountains, a drive will go bad and you will be on your way back to fix it because if the hypervisor is down, you won't be able to run VMs.
We use the 6i with Acronis, although we do have our own boot CD. The only reason I like Acronis is because we can put it on our own boot CD and not have to install it on systems. This is very useful on workstations. With Backup Exec, you cannot boot from a CD and do a backup. You can boot from a CD and do a restore, but not a backup. Obviously in this case you would want to have the backup software installed on the server so I would go with Symantec Backup Exec System Recovery Server because, in my opinion, it's a better product with better support. Just make sure you don't confuse this product with Symantec Backup Exec for Windows Server, they are too very different products.
@Greg Hejl. I'm surprised to hear that raid failures do not happen anymore. I'm assuming when you say raid failures, you mean hard drives failing because that's the reason raid sets are used. Hard drive failures still do happen... I had it happen just a month ago and if the drives were not raided, I would have had a fun Sunday afternoon restoring the server. Instead, I came in on Monday and plugged in a new drive.
As for Hyper-V, you still should have your hypervisor installed on raided drives (most likely raid 1). Otherwise, on some Sunday afternoon when you're on vacation in the mountains, a drive will go bad and you will be on your way back to fix it because if the hypervisor is down, you won't be able to run VMs.
I'd be interested to hear Greg's reasoning for his comment too - I'm just assuming it just didn't come out like he intended.
ASKER
Thank you all for your input..
to clarify on raid failures - i was not referring to drive failures in a raid set. I was referring to array failure.
i have not had an array failure since 2007. when i retired the last of the raid sets from equipment 2005 and earlier. on a hyper v host i never use raid 5, raid 10 provides much better disk i/o
i have not had an array failure since 2007. when i retired the last of the raid sets from equipment 2005 and earlier. on a hyper v host i never use raid 5, raid 10 provides much better disk i/o
That's true, you will get better performance with raid 10, but only if you can utilize it, otherwise it's just wasted. For example, I can buy a Ferrari to drive to work, but if the speed limit is only 30 mph, then that's a lot of wasted performance. Also, having a separate raid set for your OS will give you better performance because your data raid set is freed up from handling i/o's for the OS.
It might be old school, but I still believe that mirroring the OS is the best practice. In this case, I agree with PowerEdgeTech saying that raid 1 would suffice for data because we are only talking about 12 users.
It might be old school, but I still believe that mirroring the OS is the best practice. In this case, I agree with PowerEdgeTech saying that raid 1 would suffice for data because we are only talking about 12 users.
"usmcguy: In reply to "bpl5000" comment on Acronis on the above hardware..."Acronis bootable media does not support PERC S100 and S300 RAID"http://kb.acronis.com/content/8149They recommend building a BartPE disk with the Acronis plug-in, and adding the Drivers to BartPE. I just started working on this issue yesterday and haven't had much luck. If you go this route, be prepared to do a little leg work if you want to use the Acronis bootable media on a PERC S100/S300 RAID."