domain controller vhd on same disk as host os

I have a PET310 server with 4 hard drives, One quad-core processor and 24GB ram. The first two hard drives are SATA 7.2k 'near line sas' drives and are 500GB each on a Raid 1.  The second two drives are SAS 15k drives and are 600GB each on a Raid 1.  I know its best to keep each vm that I create on their own disks and partitions, however, I am installing a domain controller and file server at a new site and have this server to work with. My current config is this:  I have all the vm's on the second 600GB Raid1 set. I created two vm's. One vm is the file server that is 430GB in size and the second VM is the dc and that is 80GB in size. I am wondering if I will have issues with the DC and the File server fighting for resources since they are both on the same disk. I'm considering moving the DC's vhd file over to the First raid set (The same disk and Raid set the Host OS is occupying). I'm trying to determine the best method and if I should leave it the way it is or move the dc as I stated to the first Raid set. That will leave me more room for the file server on the second Raid set but may present problems with systems resources for the DC since its on the first disk? Any suggestions or thoughts would be appreciated. I can always keep the DC role and file server on the same vhd if that makes more sense instead of creating two separate vms. thoughts?
Frank FerrerIT ManagerAsked:
Who is Participating?
I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.

Cliff GaliherCommented:
If you want to make an informed decision, the best way forward is to turn on performance monitoring on the existing servers for a week and gather usage trends. You'll then have real numbers to work with. You may find that utilization on both servers is low enough that your 15k SAS drives will be fine. You may find that your DC is very low, but your file server is high, and you'd want to keep the file server on high performance drives. Or you could find the opposite (not common, but not unheard of with sites that use a lot of cloud storage but have a lot of remote authentication and logging going on.)

Now, as a slight aside, I probably wouldn't store any VM data on NL-SAS disks. I'd take the performance hit and keep them all on the enterprise disks. And add disks as necessary.  But again, there is a risk tolerance assessment that needs to be done, and having performance numbers can let you better decide if the risk is worth the performance gains.
0

Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by

Your issues matter to us.

Facing a tech roadblock? Get the help and guidance you need from experienced professionals who care. Ask your question anytime, anywhere, with no hassle.

Start your 7-day free trial
Frank FerrerIT ManagerAuthor Commented:
thanks Cliff,
the server has a max of 4 available slots for hard drives so i'm a little boxed in. I may just keep both on the same Raid1 disk and then eventually get them a Nas or new server eventually. It's a little time sensitive since i'm sending to the remote site this next week and it's not in a production environment.
0
It's more than this solution.Get answers and train to solve all your tech problems - anytime, anywhere.Try it for free Edge Out The Competitionfor your dream job with proven skills and certifications.Get started today Stand Outas the employee with proven skills.Start learning today for free Move Your Career Forwardwith certification training in the latest technologies.Start your trial today
Server Hardware

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.

Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.