Link to home
Start Free TrialLog in
Avatar of jmateknik
jmateknikFlag for Denmark

asked on

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

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.
Avatar of Member_2_231077
Member_2_231077

I'd add them to the 4 disk RAID 5 and convert it to RAID 10.
Avatar of jmateknik

ASKER

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).
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
Avatar of Member_2_231077
Member_2_231077

Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial
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?
I got the some advice though missing though I would have loved to get an answer on the last part.