Solved

Improving Hyper-V Server performance RAM and IO w. 2 new 15k-disks

Posted on 2010-09-03
5
948 Views
Last Modified: 2013-11-14
I have the following Hyper-V setup:
Fijutsu Siemens PRIMERGY RX300 S4
Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU L5335  @ 2.00GHz
24 GB RAM
2 SAS-RAID-controllers holding 10 disks:
One holds 2 RAID 1-arrays (this is where the 2 new disks is to be attached)
Second holds a RAID1 and a 4 disk RAID 5 for VHDs containing data only/no OS or Swap-files

Host:
Hyper-V (w. GUI -> might become a core one day)
6 VM's:
1  WS 2008 RTM running Exchange 2007 (4 GB RAM)
5 x WS 2008 R2
Administration-server w. SCWMM, SQL 2008 R2 SMTP (3 GB RAM)
Terminal Server among other things running Outlook 2010 (3 GB RAM)
Print Server (Core 512 MB RAM)
DC (w. GUI 1GB RAM)
Sharepoint 2010 Server (8 GB RAM)

I seek to optimize the Hyper-V server disk, ram and partioningwise.
Two new 15k-disks must be used in the most optimal way.

My initial idea is to place only swap-files on that new 2-disk-RAID - Is that a good idea?

Suppose that is a good idea:
Is it save to create a  RAID0 partition (production) out of that two disks (RAID1 is safe but leaves less space and writes slower)?
Which swapfiles are most wise to move 1) Hyper-V OS Pagefile or 2) Page-files of all the VM's that I  would then create a virtual disk for, change Page-file location to that new disk and restart

Thank you for reading this long post - I cross my fingers for someone w. experience on the area sharing the knowledge.
0
Comment
Question by:jmateknik
  • 3
  • 2
5 Comments
 
LVL 55

Expert Comment

by:andyalder
ID: 33594817
I'd add them to the 4 disk RAID 5 and convert it to RAID 10.
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:jmateknik
ID: 33594888
Thanks for your reply.
I failed to mention that the new disks are the only 15-disks (the rest are10k disks)

I agree with you in that I was the one saying "Not RAID 5 - go for RAID1 or RAID 10!" but it was decided to go the RAID5 route at that time (bear in mind also that all partitions on that RAID 5 holds data only).
0
 
LVL 55

Accepted Solution

by:
andyalder earned 500 total points
ID: 33610516
Well, presuming you can't add more RAM you might put all the page files (real and virtual) on one disk and the transaction logs for SQL and exchange on the other. It'll die of course if either of these disks goes down but shouldn't suffer any data loss.
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:jmateknik
ID: 33610759
In general - what precautions should i take to meet the missing redundancy from choosing RAID 0 or the Non-RAID solution you suggest?

I.e. Suppose I did what you suggest, what would happen if SQL Server running in full recovery mode,  was prevented from writing to the failed disk holding the transaction logs?
0
 
LVL 1

Author Closing Comment

by:jmateknik
ID: 33932738
I got the some advice though missing though I would have loved to get an answer on the last part.
0

Featured Post

Free eBook: Backup on AWS

Everything you need to know about backup and disaster recovery with AWS, for FREE!

Question has a verified solution.

If you are experiencing a similar issue, please ask a related question

Why should I virtualize?  It’s a question that’s asked often enough.  My response is usually “Why SHOULDN’T you virtualize?”
Is your phone running out of space to hold pictures?  This article will show you quick tips on how to solve this problem.
This video teaches viewers how to encrypt an external drive that requires a password to read and edit the drive. All tasks are done in Disk Utility. Plug in the external drive you wish to encrypt: Make sure all previous data on the drive has been …
This tutorial will walk an individual through the process of installing the necessary services and then configuring a Windows Server 2012 system as an iSCSI target. To install the necessary roles, go to Server Manager, and select Add Roles and Featu…

679 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

Join & Ask a Question