| Author | Messages | |
AD000001187
Posts:0
 | | 11/06/2005 7:32 AM |
| What would be the suggested RAID and partitioning
scheme for a Domain controller.
Any suggestions are appreciated.
Thanks.
Dan Cox | | | |
| AD00000928
Posts:0
| | 11/06/2005 1:27 AM |
| http://www.ultratech-llc.com/KB/?File=ServerSpecs.TXT
-ASB
FAST, CHEAP, SECURE: Pick Any TWO
http://www.ultratech-llc.com/KB/
On 11/6/05, Dan Cox wrote:
> What would be the suggested RAID and partitioning scheme for a Domain
> controller.
>
> Any suggestions are appreciated.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Dan Cox
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ | | | |
| rkingsla@xxxx.yyy
| | 11/06/2005 3:18 AM |
| Dan - there will likely be as many opinions on this topic
on this list as there are knots on joe's head.
Basic rules for a DC are this (IMHO):
Mirrored (or RAID1) for OS
Mirrored (or RAID1) for DIT and Logs
You can certainly host a third mirrored pair for the logs,
but that will mostly depend upon how BUSY your AD is and how high the
replication traffic, changes, updates etc. that you
experience.
If you're asking this, you most likely have a newer AD, or
are re-architecting. In either case, I'd start with the above and then
monitor the performance with PerfMon. Make some decisions on whether to
ADD the third mirror based upon the I/O and performance impact of log writes vs.
impact on the database reads/writes.
Hope this helps!
Rick [msft]
--Posting is provided "AS IS", and confers no rights or
warranties ...
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dan
CoxSent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 1:31 AMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: [ActiveDir] Raid suggestions for
DC maybe OT
What would be the suggested RAID and partitioning
scheme for a Domain controller.
Any suggestions are appreciated.
Thanks.
Dan Cox | | | |
| listmail
Posts:429
| | 11/06/2005 4:14 AM |
| LOL. I actually pinged Rick on the "official" guidelines
previously for an Enterprise class DC with 4 disks, he was actually one of 4
people I queried since I hadn't seen what I considered good official docs on it.
Rick quoted the K3 Deployment guide which is definitely a good start. It
indicates
RAID 1 - OS
RAID 1 - Logs
RAID 1 or 0+1 - SYSVOL/DIT
If you have less than 1000 users using the DC it says you
can use one single RAID-1 for the whole thing. Though you have the same issue
here as you have for anything, how are the 1000 users using it and what else is
using it? Exchange? If so, I doubt I would do a single RAID-1 unless it was very
few users.
Otherwise you are looking at a minimum of 6 disks for all
RAID-1s or 8 disks if 0+1 and RAID-1.
When you actually look at it, the OS and the logs are using
little IOPS on a dedicated DC and splitting them off onto their own "disk" is
probably unneccessary. The DIT assuming it isn't all cached and is being heavily
hit (like say by Exchange) is raping the disk subsystem. When you have an app
that wants lots of IOPS what do you? You increase the number of spindles... So
for throughput, the fastest four disk configuration is going to
be a RAID-5 or a 0+1 or 10. In tests I did several years ago with one
hardware vendor RAID-10 and 5 were very close (within a few IOPS) with
RAID-5 eeking out the lead. They both blew RAID-1 away. In more recent tests I
heard of from someone using another hardware vendor, RAID 0+1 eeked out over
RAID-5 by a few IOPS and again blew RAID-1 out of the water. Obviously the
tests were different so I recommend folks do their own testing with their own
hardware. The fastest disk configs I am aware of are 6 and 8 disk RAID-10/0+1
setups with 8 disks supposedly being rock star fast if you have the room
internally. To put it another way, if I had 8 disks, I certainly wouldn't be
following the deployment guide config for those disks, it would be a RAID-10/0+1
setup. The 6 disk RAID-10s (The Dells I was using then didn't support 0+1) I
built about 3 or 4 years ago were screaming fast compared to everything else at
the time I had worked with. Now I don't do anything with hardware, I am more
cerebral. ;o)
And note, obviously I am not talking software RAID, this is
all hardware. Software RAID isn't something you use for production machines IMO.
joe
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rick
KingslanSent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 10:17 AMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Raid suggestions
for DC maybe OT
Dan - there will likely be as many opinions on this topic
on this list as there are knots on joe's head.
Basic rules for a DC are this (IMHO):
Mirrored (or RAID1) for OS
Mirrored (or RAID1) for DIT and Logs
You can certainly host a third mirrored pair for the logs,
but that will mostly depend upon how BUSY your AD is and how high the
replication traffic, changes, updates etc. that you
experience.
If you're asking this, you most likely have a newer AD, or
are re-architecting. In either case, I'd start with the above and then
monitor the performance with PerfMon. Make some decisions on whether to
ADD the third mirror based upon the I/O and performance impact of log writes vs.
impact on the database reads/writes.
Hope this helps!
Rick [msft]
--Posting is provided "AS IS", and confers no rights or
warranties ...
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dan
CoxSent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 1:31 AMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: [ActiveDir] Raid suggestions for
DC maybe OT
What would be the suggested RAID and partitioning
scheme for a Domain controller.
Any suggestions are appreciated.
Thanks.
Dan Cox | | | |
| AD000001161
Posts:0
| | 11/07/2005 4:07 AM |
| Dan,
Just like any
Raid Scheme, it pays to pay attention to the types of reads and writes your
system will be making. Keep the random, reads/writes on one drive, and the
Sequential reads/writes on another, that is seperate directory data, from log
data. That allows you to keep your head seek time in the correct category
for the type of data being presented.
Mirrored (or RAID1) for DIT and OS
Mirrored (or RAID1) for Logs
Nathaniel
Bahta
General Dynamics
Network Systems
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rick
KingslanSent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 10:17 AMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Raid suggestions
for DC maybe OT
Dan - there will likely be as many opinions on this topic
on this list as there are knots on joe's head.
Basic rules for a DC are this (IMHO):
Mirrored (or RAID1) for OS
Mirrored (or RAID1) for DIT and Logs
You can certainly host a third mirrored pair for the logs,
but that will mostly depend upon how BUSY your AD is and how high the
replication traffic, changes, updates etc. that you
experience.
If you're asking this, you most likely have a newer AD, or
are re-architecting. In either case, I'd start with the above and then
monitor the performance with PerfMon. Make some decisions on whether to
ADD the third mirror based upon the I/O and performance impact of log writes vs.
impact on the database reads/writes.
Hope this helps!
Rick [msft]
--Posting is provided "AS IS", and confers no rights or
warranties ...
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dan
CoxSent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 1:31 AMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: [ActiveDir] Raid suggestions for
DC maybe OT
What would be the suggested RAID and partitioning
scheme for a Domain controller.
Any suggestions are appreciated.
Thanks.
Dan Cox | | | |
| GuidoG
Posts:56
| | 11/07/2005 9:34 AM |
| > ...use as small a disk as you can
get. (8 GB)
gee, I didn't know
disks that size are still around. Mind you, 8GB is extremely small these
days - our DIT wouldn't even fit on it ;-) And before spending too much
money on ensuring minimum latency and low seek times (I'd say these should be
fairly decent for any disk you buy today), you should spend some money on memory
and ensure that your DIT fits into it - since it's always better minimize access
to your disks... Ideally head for Win2003
x64.
/Guido
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carr, Jonathan
(OFT)Sent: Montag, 7. November 2005 12:54To:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Raid suggestions
for DC maybe OT
We have allot of users coming back to our central site and
we use the following config.
adapter #1 ====> raid 1 ( 2 disk)
O/S
adapter #2 ====>raid 1 ( 2 disk) AD
LOGS
adapter #3 ===> raid 5 (3 disk) with
global hot spare AD Data
the key to this using this is that all the equipment (SCSI
disk,SCSI controller) is Ultra 320 spec with low latency and low seek
times (15 K rpm usually). The other thing that has been
noticed is that use as small a disk as you can get. (8 GB)
Some of the manufacturers are saying they only can supply 36GB drives on new
equipment. These drive are ok but the seek time goes up because of
the size of the drive
this config works good also
adapter #1 ====> raid 1 ( 2 disk)
O/S
adapter #2 ====>raid 1 ( 2 disk) AD
LOGS and raid 5 (3 disk) with global hot
spare (total of 6 on this channel)
hope this
helps
This e-mail, including
any attachments, may be confidential, privileged or otherwise legally protected.
It is intended only for the addressee. If you received this e-mail in error or
from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, do not disseminate, copy
or otherwise use this e-mail or its attachments. Please notify the sender
immediately by reply e-mail and delete the e-mail from your system.
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of joeSent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 11:12
AMTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir]
Raid suggestions for DC maybe OT
LOL. I actually pinged Rick on the "official" guidelines
previously for an Enterprise class DC with 4 disks, he was actually one of 4
people I queried since I hadn't seen what I considered good official docs on it.
Rick quoted the K3 Deployment guide which is definitely a good start. It
indicates
RAID 1 - OS
RAID 1 - Logs
RAID 1 or 0+1 - SYSVOL/DIT
If you have less than 1000 users using the DC it says you
can use one single RAID-1 for the whole thing. Though you have the same issue
here as you have for anything, how are the 1000 users using it and what else is
using it? Exchange? If so, I doubt I would do a single RAID-1 unless it was very
few users.
Otherwise you are looking at a minimum of 6 disks for all
RAID-1s or 8 disks if 0+1 and RAID-1.
When you actually look at it, the OS and the logs are using
little IOPS on a dedicated DC and splitting them off onto their own "disk" is
probably unneccessary. The DIT assuming it isn't all cached and is being heavily
hit (like say by Exchange) is raping the disk subsystem. When you have an app
that wants lots of IOPS what do you? You increase the number of spindles... So
for throughput, the fastest four disk configuration is going to
be a RAID-5 or a 0+1 or 10. In tests I did several years ago with one
hardware vendor RAID-10 and 5 were very close (within a few IOPS) with
RAID-5 eeking out the lead. They both blew RAID-1 away. In more recent tests I
heard of from someone using another hardware vendor, RAID 0+1 eeked out over
RAID-5 by a few IOPS and again blew RAID-1 out of the water. Obviously the
tests were different so I recommend folks do their own testing with their own
hardware. The fastest disk configs I am aware of are 6 and 8 disk RAID-10/0+1
setups with 8 disks supposedly being rock star fast if you have the room
internally. To put it another way, if I had 8 disks, I certainly wouldn't be
following the deployment guide config for those disks, it would be a RAID-10/0+1
setup. The 6 disk RAID-10s (The Dells I was using then didn't support 0+1) I
built about 3 or 4 years ago were screaming fast compared to everything else at
the time I had worked with. Now I don't do anything with hardware, I am more
cerebral. ;o)
And note, obviously I am not talking software RAID, this is
all hardware. Software RAID isn't something you use for production machines IMO.
joe
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rick
KingslanSent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 10:17 AMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Raid suggestions
for DC maybe OT
Dan - there will likely be as many opinions on this topic
on this list as there are knots on joe's head.
Basic rules for a DC are this (IMHO):
Mirrored (or RAID1) for OS
Mirrored (or RAID1) for DIT and Logs
You can certainly host a third mirrored pair for the logs,
but that will mostly depend upon how BUSY your AD is and how high the
replication traffic, changes, updates etc. that you
experience.
If you're asking this, you most likely have a newer AD, or
are re-architecting. In either case, I'd start with the above and then
monitor the performance with PerfMon. Make some decisions on whether to
ADD the third mirror based upon the I/O and performance impact of log writes vs.
impact on the database reads/writes.
Hope this helps!
Rick [msft]
--Posting is provided "AS IS", and confers no rights or
warranties ...
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dan
CoxSent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 1:31 AMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: [ActiveDir] Raid suggestions for
DC maybe OT
What would be the suggested RAID and partitioning
scheme for a Domain controller.
Any suggestions are appreciated.
Thanks.
Dan Cox | | | |
| Jonathan.Carr@xxxx.yyy
| | 11/07/2005 11:56 AM |
| We have allot of users coming back to our central site and
we use the following config.
adapter #1 ====> raid 1 ( 2 disk)
O/S
adapter #2 ====>raid 1 ( 2 disk) AD
LOGS
adapter #3 ===> raid 5 (3 disk) with
global hot spare AD Data
the key to this using this is that all the equipment (SCSI
disk,SCSI controller) is Ultra 320 spec with low latency and low seek
times (15 K rpm usually). The other thing that has been
noticed is that use as small a disk as you can get. (8 GB)
Some of the manufacturers are saying they only can supply 36GB drives on new
equipment. These drive are ok but the seek time goes up because of
the size of the drive
this config works good also
adapter #1 ====> raid 1 ( 2 disk)
O/S
adapter #2 ====>raid 1 ( 2 disk) AD
LOGS and raid 5 (3 disk) with global hot
spare (total of 6 on this channel)
hope this
helps
This e-mail, including any attachments, may be confidential, privileged or otherwise legally protected. It is intended only for the addressee. If you received this e-mail in error or from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, do not disseminate, copy or otherwise use this e-mail or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete the e-mail from your system.
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
joeSent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 11:12 AMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Raid suggestions
for DC maybe OT
LOL. I actually pinged Rick on the "official" guidelines
previously for an Enterprise class DC with 4 disks, he was actually one of 4
people I queried since I hadn't seen what I considered good official docs on it.
Rick quoted the K3 Deployment guide which is definitely a good start. It
indicates
RAID 1 - OS
RAID 1 - Logs
RAID 1 or 0+1 - SYSVOL/DIT
If you have less than 1000 users using the DC it says you
can use one single RAID-1 for the whole thing. Though you have the same issue
here as you have for anything, how are the 1000 users using it and what else is
using it? Exchange? If so, I doubt I would do a single RAID-1 unless it was very
few users.
Otherwise you are looking at a minimum of 6 disks for all
RAID-1s or 8 disks if 0+1 and RAID-1.
When you actually look at it, the OS and the logs are using
little IOPS on a dedicated DC and splitting them off onto their own "disk" is
probably unneccessary. The DIT assuming it isn't all cached and is being heavily
hit (like say by Exchange) is raping the disk subsystem. When you have an app
that wants lots of IOPS what do you? You increase the number of spindles... So
for throughput, the fastest four disk configuration is going to
be a RAID-5 or a 0+1 or 10. In tests I did several years ago with one
hardware vendor RAID-10 and 5 were very close (within a few IOPS) with
RAID-5 eeking out the lead. They both blew RAID-1 away. In more recent tests I
heard of from someone using another hardware vendor, RAID 0+1 eeked out over
RAID-5 by a few IOPS and again blew RAID-1 out of the water. Obviously the
tests were different so I recommend folks do their own testing with their own
hardware. The fastest disk configs I am aware of are 6 and 8 disk RAID-10/0+1
setups with 8 disks supposedly being rock star fast if you have the room
internally. To put it another way, if I had 8 disks, I certainly wouldn't be
following the deployment guide config for those disks, it would be a RAID-10/0+1
setup. The 6 disk RAID-10s (The Dells I was using then didn't support 0+1) I
built about 3 or 4 years ago were screaming fast compared to everything else at
the time I had worked with. Now I don't do anything with hardware, I am more
cerebral. ;o)
And note, obviously I am not talking software RAID, this is
all hardware. Software RAID isn't something you use for production machines IMO.
joe
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rick
KingslanSent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 10:17 AMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Raid suggestions
for DC maybe OT
Dan - there will likely be as many opinions on this topic
on this list as there are knots on joe's head.
Basic rules for a DC are this (IMHO):
Mirrored (or RAID1) for OS
Mirrored (or RAID1) for DIT and Logs
You can certainly host a third mirrored pair for the logs,
but that will mostly depend upon how BUSY your AD is and how high the
replication traffic, changes, updates etc. that you
experience.
If you're asking this, you most likely have a newer AD, or
are re-architecting. In either case, I'd start with the above and then
monitor the performance with PerfMon. Make some decisions on whether to
ADD the third mirror based upon the I/O and performance impact of log writes vs.
impact on the database reads/writes.
Hope this helps!
Rick [msft]
--Posting is provided "AS IS", and confers no rights or
warranties ...
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dan
CoxSent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 1:31 AMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: [ActiveDir] Raid suggestions for
DC maybe OT
What would be the suggested RAID and partitioning
scheme for a Domain controller.
Any suggestions are appreciated.
Thanks.
Dan Cox | | | |
| listmail
Posts:429
| | 11/08/2005 1:55 AM |
| The only time I really found building DCs painful was in
the early days of 2000 when you had more than 50 DCs and it was a crap shoot on
whether or not FRS was going to work and you were waiting for a long time to get
sysvol working even if you only had 100kb of data in it. Other than that WAN
sites could be a pain but IFM helps considerably there.
Of course there are DCs that I think a stripe set would be
bad for, I would specifically think of any DCs that were maintaining state for
an application that was hard coded to it (again the syncing type
apps). Bridgeheads might be another place.
In the
10 years of directly running ops in an Enterprise company I think the
actual number of disk failures across the hundreds of servers I managed could be
counted on two hands. I have had more MOBO failures (and an actual MOBO catch on
fire once) than disk failures, especially towards the end when we dumped
Dell to go to IBM when we approached a 35% failure rate on IBM MOBOs. This
includes some machines that I built back in the 90's on NT4 SP3 for heavy duty
financial SQL apps where we spent 6 months testing the apps for failover and
burning the servers in including yanking disks out of the bays while they were
spinning and having them gyroscope around in our hands for a laugh. We wanted
failures so we could test all of the failover and support processes and the darn
things would keep working.
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carr, Jonathan
(OFT)Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 7:00 AMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Raid suggestions
for DC maybe OT
I don't know about you but rebuilding DC's is not fun
stuff. Especially if it has 275 replication links to it from remote
DC's.. believe me spend the money on the fault
tolerance..
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
joeSent: Monday, November 07, 2005 10:09 PMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Raid suggestions
for DC maybe OT
How about just not partitioning the whole disk of the
larger disks? Note I didn't come up with that idea, that came from a young
whippersnapper I know out of Redmond whom I was discussing the fastest AD disk
configs with a few weeks ago. I haven't tried it but it makes sense to me. Just
allocate maybe 10-12GB of each of the 36GB drives across an array or
so.
Course you could always say screw the fault tolerant RAIDs,
this isn't Exchange, and run commando with a stripe set. If you have enough
extra DC capacity in the site you could have them all running really fast and
then when one blows it just goes away. Most applications that are written
properly for AD handle that just fine except apps that hard sync to a single DC.
If I have 7-8 disks, I wouldn't hesitate to put them in a
single RAID-10/0+1 type config. OS and Logs are snoring on most DCs. All of the
action is around the DIT unless you get that baby into memory which was the
first I think 20 responses I got from the whippersnapper. Use 64 bit. I know
but... use 64 bit... I know but.... use 64 bit.... I know but.... are you still
here, use 64 bit....
joe
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carr, Jonathan
(OFT)Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 6:54 AMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Raid suggestions
for DC maybe OT
We have allot of users coming back to our central site and
we use the following config.
adapter #1 ====> raid 1 ( 2 disk)
O/S
adapter #2 ====>raid 1 ( 2 disk) AD
LOGS
adapter #3 ===> raid 5 (3 disk) with
global hot spare AD Data
the key to this using this is that all the equipment (SCSI
disk,SCSI controller) is Ultra 320 spec with low latency and low seek
times (15 K rpm usually). The other thing that has been
noticed is that use as small a disk as you can get. (8 GB)
Some of the manufacturers are saying they only can supply 36GB drives on new
equipment. These drive are ok but the seek time goes up because of
the size of the drive
this config works good also
adapter #1 ====> raid 1 ( 2 disk)
O/S
adapter #2 ====>raid 1 ( 2 disk) AD
LOGS and raid 5 (3 disk) with global hot
spare (total of 6 on this channel)
hope this
helps
This e-mail, including
any attachments, may be confidential, privileged or otherwise legally protected.
It is intended only for the addressee. If you received this e-mail in error or
from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, do not disseminate, copy
or otherwise use this e-mail or its attachments. Please notify the sender
immediately by reply e-mail and delete the e-mail from your system.
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of joeSent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 11:12
AMTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir]
Raid suggestions for DC maybe OT
LOL. I actually pinged Rick on the "official" guidelines
previously for an Enterprise class DC with 4 disks, he was actually one of 4
people I queried since I hadn't seen what I considered good official docs on it.
Rick quoted the K3 Deployment guide which is definitely a good start. It
indicates
RAID 1 - OS
RAID 1 - Logs
RAID 1 or 0+1 - SYSVOL/DIT
If you have less than 1000 users using the DC it says you
can use one single RAID-1 for the whole thing. Though you have the same issue
here as you have for anything, how are the 1000 users using it and what else is
using it? Exchange? If so, I doubt I would do a single RAID-1 unless it was very
few users.
Otherwise you are looking at a minimum of 6 disks for all
RAID-1s or 8 disks if 0+1 and RAID-1.
When you actually look at it, the OS and the logs are using
little IOPS on a dedicated DC and splitting them off onto their own "disk" is
probably unneccessary. The DIT assuming it isn't all cached and is being heavily
hit (like say by Exchange) is raping the disk subsystem. When you have an app
that wants lots of IOPS what do you? You increase the number of spindles... So
for throughput, the fastest four disk configuration is going to
be a RAID-5 or a 0+1 or 10. In tests I did several years ago with one
hardware vendor RAID-10 and 5 were very close (within a few IOPS) with
RAID-5 eeking out the lead. They both blew RAID-1 away. In more recent tests I
heard of from someone using another hardware vendor, RAID 0+1 eeked out over
RAID-5 by a few IOPS and again blew RAID-1 out of the water. Obviously the
tests were different so I recommend folks do their own testing with their own
hardware. The fastest disk configs I am aware of are 6 and 8 disk RAID-10/0+1
setups with 8 disks supposedly being rock star fast if you have the room
internally. To put it another way, if I had 8 disks, I certainly wouldn't be
following the deployment guide config for those disks, it would be a RAID-10/0+1
setup. The 6 disk RAID-10s (The Dells I was using then didn't support 0+1) I
built about 3 or 4 years ago were screaming fast compared to everything else at
the time I had worked with. Now I don't do anything with hardware, I am more
cerebral. ;o)
And note, obviously I am not talking software RAID, this is
all hardware. Software RAID isn't something you use for production machines IMO.
joe
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rick
KingslanSent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 10:17 AMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Raid suggestions
for DC maybe OT
Dan - there will likely be as many opinions on this topic
on this list as there are knots on joe's head.
Basic rules for a DC are this (IMHO):
Mirrored (or RAID1) for OS
Mirrored (or RAID1) for DIT and Logs
You can certainly host a third mirrored pair for the logs,
but that will mostly depend upon how BUSY your AD is and how high the
replication traffic, changes, updates etc. that you
experience.
If you're asking this, you most likely have a newer AD, or
are re-architecting. In either case, I'd start with the above and then
monitor the performance with PerfMon. Make some decisions on whether to
ADD the third mirror based upon the I/O and performance impact of log writes vs.
impact on the database reads/writes.
Hope this helps!
Rick [msft]
--Posting is provided "AS IS", and confers no rights or
warranties ...
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dan
CoxSent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 1:31 AMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: [ActiveDir] Raid suggestions for
DC maybe OT
What would be the suggested RAID and partitioning
scheme for a Domain controller.
Any suggestions are appreciated.
Thanks.
Dan Cox | | | |
| rkingsla@xxxx.yyy
| | 11/08/2005 2:49 AM |
| Jonathan -
275 replication links seems, at least to my tired eyes this
AM, to be a lot. Are you running a branch office environment, or is this a
number of remote sites that link back to a single hub?
I'm interested as to why there are so many repl links to
your DCs, only if it's one DC. In my experience, that's not optimal, and
we can provide some prescriptive guidance to help optimize the topology with no
addition of hardware, just some tuning of site/subnet
configurations.
Rick [msft]
--Posting is provided "AS IS", and confers no rights or
warranties ...
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carr, Jonathan
(OFT)Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 6:00 AMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Raid suggestions
for DC maybe OT
I don't know about you but rebuilding DC's is not fun
stuff. Especially if it has 275 replication links to it from remote
DC's.. believe me spend the money on the fault
tolerance..
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
joeSent: Monday, November 07, 2005 10:09 PMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Raid suggestions
for DC maybe OT
How about just not partitioning the whole disk of the
larger disks? Note I didn't come up with that idea, that came from a young
whippersnapper I know out of Redmond whom I was discussing the fastest AD disk
configs with a few weeks ago. I haven't tried it but it makes sense to me. Just
allocate maybe 10-12GB of each of the 36GB drives across an array or
so.
Course you could always say screw the fault tolerant RAIDs,
this isn't Exchange, and run commando with a stripe set. If you have enough
extra DC capacity in the site you could have them all running really fast and
then when one blows it just goes away. Most applications that are written
properly for AD handle that just fine except apps that hard sync to a single DC.
If I have 7-8 disks, I wouldn't hesitate to put them in a
single RAID-10/0+1 type config. OS and Logs are snoring on most DCs. All of the
action is around the DIT unless you get that baby into memory which was the
first I think 20 responses I got from the whippersnapper. Use 64 bit. I know
but... use 64 bit... I know but.... use 64 bit.... I know but.... are you still
here, use 64 bit....
joe
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carr, Jonathan
(OFT)Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 6:54 AMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Raid suggestions
for DC maybe OT
We have allot of users coming back to our central site and
we use the following config.
adapter #1 ====> raid 1 ( 2 disk)
O/S
adapter #2 ====>raid 1 ( 2 disk) AD
LOGS
adapter #3 ===> raid 5 (3 disk) with
global hot spare AD Data
the key to this using this is that all the equipment (SCSI
disk,SCSI controller) is Ultra 320 spec with low latency and low seek
times (15 K rpm usually). The other thing that has been
noticed is that use as small a disk as you can get. (8 GB)
Some of the manufacturers are saying they only can supply 36GB drives on new
equipment. These drive are ok but the seek time goes up because of
the size of the drive
this config works good also
adapter #1 ====> raid 1 ( 2 disk)
O/S
adapter #2 ====>raid 1 ( 2 disk) AD
LOGS and raid 5 (3 disk) with global hot
spare (total of 6 on this channel)
hope this
helps
This e-mail, including
any attachments, may be confidential, privileged or otherwise legally protected.
It is intended only for the addressee. If you received this e-mail in error or
from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, do not disseminate, copy
or otherwise use this e-mail or its attachments. Please notify the sender
immediately by reply e-mail and delete the e-mail from your system.
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of joeSent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 11:12
AMTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir]
Raid suggestions for DC maybe OT
LOL. I actually pinged Rick on the "official" guidelines
previously for an Enterprise class DC with 4 disks, he was actually one of 4
people I queried since I hadn't seen what I considered good official docs on it.
Rick quoted the K3 Deployment guide which is definitely a good start. It
indicates
RAID 1 - OS
RAID 1 - Logs
RAID 1 or 0+1 - SYSVOL/DIT
If you have less than 1000 users using the DC it says you
can use one single RAID-1 for the whole thing. Though you have the same issue
here as you have for anything, how are the 1000 users using it and what else is
using it? Exchange? If so, I doubt I would do a single RAID-1 unless it was very
few users.
Otherwise you are looking at a minimum of 6 disks for all
RAID-1s or 8 disks if 0+1 and RAID-1.
When you actually look at it, the OS and the logs are using
little IOPS on a dedicated DC and splitting them off onto their own "disk" is
probably unneccessary. The DIT assuming it isn't all cached and is being heavily
hit (like say by Exchange) is raping the disk subsystem. When you have an app
that wants lots of IOPS what do you? You increase the number of spindles... So
for throughput, the fastest four disk configuration is going to
be a RAID-5 or a 0+1 or 10. In tests I did several years ago with one
hardware vendor RAID-10 and 5 were very close (within a few IOPS) with
RAID-5 eeking out the lead. They both blew RAID-1 away. In more recent tests I
heard of from someone using another hardware vendor, RAID 0+1 eeked out over
RAID-5 by a few IOPS and again blew RAID-1 out of the water. Obviously the
tests were different so I recommend folks do their own testing with their own
hardware. The fastest disk configs I am aware of are 6 and 8 disk RAID-10/0+1
setups with 8 disks supposedly being rock star fast if you have the room
internally. To put it another way, if I had 8 disks, I certainly wouldn't be
following the deployment guide config for those disks, it would be a RAID-10/0+1
setup. The 6 disk RAID-10s (The Dells I was using then didn't support 0+1) I
built about 3 or 4 years ago were screaming fast compared to everything else at
the time I had worked with. Now I don't do anything with hardware, I am more
cerebral. ;o)
And note, obviously I am not talking software RAID, this is
all hardware. Software RAID isn't something you use for production machines IMO.
joe
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rick
KingslanSent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 10:17 AMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Raid suggestions
for DC maybe OT
Dan - there will likely be as many opinions on this topic
on this list as there are knots on joe's head.
Basic rules for a DC are this (IMHO):
Mirrored (or RAID1) for OS
Mirrored (or RAID1) for DIT and Logs
You can certainly host a third mirrored pair for the logs,
but that will mostly depend upon how BUSY your AD is and how high the
replication traffic, changes, updates etc. that you
experience.
If you're asking this, you most likely have a newer AD, or
are re-architecting. In either case, I'd start with the above and then
monitor the performance with PerfMon. Make some decisions on whether to
ADD the third mirror based upon the I/O and performance impact of log writes vs.
impact on the database reads/writes.
Hope this helps!
Rick [msft]
--Posting is provided "AS IS", and confers no rights or
warranties ...
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dan
CoxSent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 1:31 AMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: [ActiveDir] Raid suggestions for
DC maybe OT
What would be the suggested RAID and partitioning
scheme for a Domain controller.
Any suggestions are appreciated.
Thanks.
Dan Cox | | | |
| listmail
Posts:429
| | 11/08/2005 3:11 AM |
| How about just not partitioning the whole disk of the
larger disks? Note I didn't come up with that idea, that came from a young
whippersnapper I know out of Redmond whom I was discussing the fastest AD disk
configs with a few weeks ago. I haven't tried it but it makes sense to me. Just
allocate maybe 10-12GB of each of the 36GB drives across an array or
so.
Course you could always say screw the fault tolerant RAIDs,
this isn't Exchange, and run commando with a stripe set. If you have enough
extra DC capacity in the site you could have them all running really fast and
then when one blows it just goes away. Most applications that are written
properly for AD handle that just fine except apps that hard sync to a single DC.
If I have 7-8 disks, I wouldn't hesitate to put them in a
single RAID-10/0+1 type config. OS and Logs are snoring on most DCs. All of the
action is around the DIT unless you get that baby into memory which was the
first I think 20 responses I got from the whippersnapper. Use 64 bit. I know
but... use 64 bit... I know but.... use 64 bit.... I know but.... are you still
here, use 64 bit....
joe
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carr, Jonathan
(OFT)Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 6:54 AMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Raid suggestions
for DC maybe OT
We have allot of users coming back to our central site and
we use the following config.
adapter #1 ====> raid 1 ( 2 disk)
O/S
adapter #2 ====>raid 1 ( 2 disk) AD
LOGS
adapter #3 ===> raid 5 (3 disk) with
global hot spare AD Data
the key to this using this is that all the equipment (SCSI
disk,SCSI controller) is Ultra 320 spec with low latency and low seek
times (15 K rpm usually). The other thing that has been
noticed is that use as small a disk as you can get. (8 GB)
Some of the manufacturers are saying they only can supply 36GB drives on new
equipment. These drive are ok but the seek time goes up because of
the size of the drive
this config works good also
adapter #1 ====> raid 1 ( 2 disk)
O/S
adapter #2 ====>raid 1 ( 2 disk) AD
LOGS and raid 5 (3 disk) with global hot
spare (total of 6 on this channel)
hope this
helps
This e-mail, including
any attachments, may be confidential, privileged or otherwise legally protected.
It is intended only for the addressee. If you received this e-mail in error or
from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, do not disseminate, copy
or otherwise use this e-mail or its attachments. Please notify the sender
immediately by reply e-mail and delete the e-mail from your system.
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of joeSent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 11:12
AMTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir]
Raid suggestions for DC maybe OT
LOL. I actually pinged Rick on the "official" guidelines
previously for an Enterprise class DC with 4 disks, he was actually one of 4
people I queried since I hadn't seen what I considered good official docs on it.
Rick quoted the K3 Deployment guide which is definitely a good start. It
indicates
RAID 1 - OS
RAID 1 - Logs
RAID 1 or 0+1 - SYSVOL/DIT
If you have less than 1000 users using the DC it says you
can use one single RAID-1 for the whole thing. Though you have the same issue
here as you have for anything, how are the 1000 users using it and what else is
using it? Exchange? If so, I doubt I would do a single RAID-1 unless it was very
few users.
Otherwise you are looking at a minimum of 6 disks for all
RAID-1s or 8 disks if 0+1 and RAID-1.
When you actually look at it, the OS and the logs are using
little IOPS on a dedicated DC and splitting them off onto their own "disk" is
probably unneccessary. The DIT assuming it isn't all cached and is being heavily
hit (like say by Exchange) is raping the disk subsystem. When you have an app
that wants lots of IOPS what do you? You increase the number of spindles... So
for throughput, the fastest four disk configuration is going to
be a RAID-5 or a 0+1 or 10. In tests I did several years ago with one
hardware vendor RAID-10 and 5 were very close (within a few IOPS) with
RAID-5 eeking out the lead. They both blew RAID-1 away. In more recent tests I
heard of from someone using another hardware vendor, RAID 0+1 eeked out over
RAID-5 by a few IOPS and again blew RAID-1 out of the water. Obviously the
tests were different so I recommend folks do their own testing with their own
hardware. The fastest disk configs I am aware of are 6 and 8 disk RAID-10/0+1
setups with 8 disks supposedly being rock star fast if you have the room
internally. To put it another way, if I had 8 disks, I certainly wouldn't be
following the deployment guide config for those disks, it would be a RAID-10/0+1
setup. The 6 disk RAID-10s (The Dells I was using then didn't support 0+1) I
built about 3 or 4 years ago were screaming fast compared to everything else at
the time I had worked with. Now I don't do anything with hardware, I am more
cerebral. ;o)
And note, obviously I am not talking software RAID, this is
all hardware. Software RAID isn't something you use for production machines IMO.
joe
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rick
KingslanSent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 10:17 AMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Raid suggestions
for DC maybe OT
Dan - there will likely be as many opinions on this topic
on this list as there are knots on joe's head.
Basic rules for a DC are this (IMHO):
Mirrored (or RAID1) for OS
Mirrored (or RAID1) for DIT and Logs
You can certainly host a third mirrored pair for the logs,
but that will mostly depend upon how BUSY your AD is and how high the
replication traffic, changes, updates etc. that you
experience.
If you're asking this, you most likely have a newer AD, or
are re-architecting. In either case, I'd start with the above and then
monitor the performance with PerfMon. Make some decisions on whether to
ADD the third mirror based upon the I/O and performance impact of log writes vs.
impact on the database reads/writes.
Hope this helps!
Rick [msft]
--Posting is provided "AS IS", and confers no rights or
warranties ...
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dan
CoxSent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 1:31 AMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: [ActiveDir] Raid suggestions for
DC maybe OT
What would be the suggested RAID and partitioning
scheme for a Domain controller.
Any suggestions are appreciated.
Thanks.
Dan Cox | | | |
| davidadner
Posts:0
| | 11/08/2005 3:55 AM |
| I have this vague feeling your young whippersnapper's
initials are E.F. Could be wrong, though.
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
joeSent: Monday, November 07, 2005 9:09 PMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Raid
suggestions for DC maybe OT
How about just not partitioning the whole disk of the
larger disks? Note I didn't come up with that idea, that came from a young
whippersnapper I know out of Redmond whom I was discussing the fastest AD disk
configs with a few weeks ago. I haven't tried it but it makes sense to me.
Just allocate maybe 10-12GB of each of the 36GB drives across an array or
so.
Course you could always say screw the fault tolerant
RAIDs, this isn't Exchange, and run commando with a stripe set. If you have
enough extra DC capacity in the site you could have them all running really
fast and then when one blows it just goes away. Most applications that are
written properly for AD handle that just fine except apps that hard sync to a
single DC.
If I have 7-8 disks, I wouldn't hesitate to put them in a
single RAID-10/0+1 type config. OS and Logs are snoring on most DCs. All of
the action is around the DIT unless you get that baby into memory which was
the first I think 20 responses I got from the whippersnapper. Use 64 bit. I
know but... use 64 bit... I know but.... use 64 bit.... I know but.... are you
still here, use 64 bit....
joe
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carr, Jonathan
(OFT)Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 6:54 AMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Raid
suggestions for DC maybe OT
We have allot of users coming back to our central site
and we use the following config.
adapter #1 ====> raid 1 ( 2 disk)
O/S
adapter #2 ====>raid 1 ( 2 disk) AD
LOGS
adapter #3 ===> raid 5 (3 disk) with
global hot spare AD Data
the key to this using this is that all the equipment
(SCSI disk,SCSI controller) is Ultra 320 spec with low latency and low seek
times (15 K rpm usually). The other thing that has been
noticed is that use as small a disk as you can get. (8 GB)
Some of the manufacturers are saying they only can supply 36GB drives on new
equipment. These drive are ok but the seek time goes up because of
the size of the drive
this config works good also
adapter #1 ====> raid 1 ( 2 disk)
O/S
adapter #2 ====>raid 1 ( 2 disk) AD
LOGS and raid 5 (3 disk) with global hot
spare (total of 6 on this channel)
hope this
helps
This e-mail, including
any attachments, may be confidential, privileged or otherwise legally
protected. It is intended only for the addressee. If you received this e-mail
in error or from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, do not
disseminate, copy or otherwise use this e-mail or its attachments.
Please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete the e-mail
from your system.
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of joeSent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 11:12
AMTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE:
[ActiveDir] Raid suggestions for DC maybe OT
LOL. I actually pinged Rick on the "official" guidelines
previously for an Enterprise class DC with 4 disks, he was actually one of 4
people I queried since I hadn't seen what I considered good official docs on
it. Rick quoted the K3 Deployment guide which is definitely a good start. It
indicates
RAID 1 - OS
RAID 1 - Logs
RAID 1 or 0+1 - SYSVOL/DIT
If you have less than 1000 users using the DC it says you
can use one single RAID-1 for the whole thing. Though you have the same issue
here as you have for anything, how are the 1000 users using it and what else
is using it? Exchange? If so, I doubt I would do a single RAID-1 unless it was
very few users.
Otherwise you are looking at a minimum of 6 disks for all
RAID-1s or 8 disks if 0+1 and RAID-1.
When you actually look at it, the OS and the logs are
using little IOPS on a dedicated DC and splitting them off onto their own
"disk" is probably unneccessary. The DIT assuming it isn't all cached and is
being heavily hit (like say by Exchange) is raping the disk subsystem. When
you have an app that wants lots of IOPS what do you? You increase the number
of spindles... So for throughput, the fastest four disk
configuration is going to be a RAID-5 or a 0+1 or 10. In tests I did
several years ago with one hardware vendor RAID-10 and 5 were very close
(within a few IOPS) with RAID-5 eeking out the lead. They both blew
RAID-1 away. In more recent tests I heard of from someone using another
hardware vendor, RAID 0+1 eeked out over RAID-5 by a few IOPS and again
blew RAID-1 out of the water. Obviously the tests were different so I
recommend folks do their own testing with their own hardware. The fastest disk
configs I am aware of are 6 and 8 disk RAID-10/0+1 setups with 8 disks
supposedly being rock star fast if you have the room internally. To put it
another way, if I had 8 disks, I certainly wouldn't be following the
deployment guide config for those disks, it would be a RAID-10/0+1 setup. The
6 disk RAID-10s (The Dells I was using then didn't support 0+1) I built about
3 or 4 years ago were screaming fast compared to everything else at the time I
had worked with. Now I don't do anything with hardware, I am more cerebral.
;o)
And note, obviously I am not talking software RAID, this
is all hardware. Software RAID isn't something you use for production machines
IMO.
joe
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rick
KingslanSent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 10:17 AMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Raid
suggestions for DC maybe OT
Dan - there will likely be as many opinions on this topic
on this list as there are knots on joe's head.
Basic rules for a DC are this (IMHO):
Mirrored (or RAID1) for OS
Mirrored (or RAID1) for DIT and Logs
You can certainly host a third mirrored pair for the
logs, but that will mostly depend upon how BUSY your AD is and how high the
replication traffic, changes, updates etc. that you
experience.
If you're asking this, you most likely have a newer AD,
or are re-architecting. In either case, I'd start with the above and
then monitor the performance with PerfMon. Make some decisions on
whether to ADD the third mirror based upon the I/O and performance impact of
log writes vs. impact on the database reads/writes.
Hope this helps!
Rick [msft]
--Posting is provided "AS IS", and confers no rights or
warranties ...
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dan
CoxSent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 1:31 AMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: [ActiveDir] Raid suggestions
for DC maybe OT
What would be the suggested RAID and partitioning
scheme for a Domain controller.
Any suggestions are
appreciated.
Thanks.
Dan Cox | | | |
| AD000001335
Posts:0
| | 11/08/2005 4:13 AM |
| We sell a lot of DL380s for domain controllers, and some of
my colleagues like to configure the six drives into a single RAID-1+0 volume for
domain controllers. I haven't personally done any lab validation of that
configuration, but the arguments for it make a lot of sense, partcularly the
spreading out of the I/O across more drives.
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVPFreelance E-Mail
PhilosopherProtecting the world from PSTs and Bricked
Backups!„¢
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dan
CoxSent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 11:31 PMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: [ActiveDir] Raid suggestions for
DC maybe OT
What would be the suggested RAID and partitioning
scheme for a Domain controller.
Any suggestions are appreciated.
Thanks.
Dan Cox | | | |
| prenouf
Posts:1
| | 11/08/2005 6:06 AM |
| How about just not partitioning the whole disk of the larger disks? Note I didn't come up with that idea, that came from a young whippersnapper I know out of Redmond whom I was discussing the fastest AD disk configs with a few weeks ago. I haven't tried it but it makes sense to me. Just allocate maybe 10-12GB of each of the 36GB drives across an array or so.
Course you could always say screw the fault tolerant RAIDs, this isn't Exchange, and run commando with a stripe set. If you have enough extra DC capacity in the site you could have them all running really fast and then when one blows it just goes away. Most applications that are written properly for AD handle that just fine except apps that hard sync to a single DC.
If I have 7-8 disks, I wouldn't hesitate to put them in a single RAID-10/0+1 type config. OS and Logs are snoring on most DCs. All of the action is around the DIT unless you get that baby into memory which was the first I think 20 responses I got from the whippersnapper. Use 64 bit. I know but... use 64 bit... I know but.... use 64 bit.... I know but.... are you still here, use 64 bit....
joe
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carr, Jonathan (OFT)Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 6:54 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject:
RE: [ActiveDir] Raid suggestions for DC maybe OT
We have allot of users coming back to our central site and we use the following config.
adapter #1 ====> raid 1 ( 2 disk) O/S
adapter #2 ====>raid 1 ( 2 disk) AD LOGS
adapter #3 ===> raid 5 (3 disk) with global hot spare AD Data
the key to this using this is that all the equipment (SCSI disk,SCSI controller) is Ultra 320 spec with low latency and low seek times (15 K rpm usually). The other thing that has been noticed is that use as small a disk as you can get. (8 GB) Some of the manufacturers are saying they only can supply 36GB drives on new equipment. These drive are ok but the seek time goes up because of the size of the drive
this config works good also
adapter #1 ====> raid 1 ( 2 disk) O/S
adapter #2 ====>raid 1 ( 2 disk) AD LOGS and raid 5 (3 disk) with global hot spare (total of 6 on this channel)
hope this helps
This e-mail, including any attachments, may be confidential, privileged or otherwise legally protected. It is intended only for the addressee. If you received this e-mail in error or from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, do not disseminate, copy or otherwise use this e-mail or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete the e-mail from your system.
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of joeSent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 11:12 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Raid suggestions for DC maybe OT
LOL. I actually pinged Rick on the "official" guidelines previously for an Enterprise class DC with 4 disks, he was actually one of 4 people I queried since I hadn't seen what I considered good official docs on it. Rick quoted the K3 Deployment guide which is definitely a good start. It indicates
RAID 1 - OS
RAID 1 - Logs
RAID 1 or 0+1 - SYSVOL/DIT
If you have less than 1000 users using the DC it says you can use one single RAID-1 for the whole thing. Though you have the same issue here as you have for anything, how are the 1000 users using it and what else is using it? Exchange? If so, I doubt I would do a single RAID-1 unless it was very few users.
Otherwise you are looking at a minimum of 6 disks for all RAID-1s or 8 disks if 0+1 and RAID-1.
When you actually look at it, the OS and the logs are using little IOPS on a dedicated DC and splitting them off onto their own "disk" is probably unneccessary. The DIT assuming it isn't all cached and is being heavily hit (like say by Exchange) is raping the disk subsystem. When you have an app that wants lots of IOPS what do you? You increase the number of spindles... So for
throughput, the fastest four disk configuration is going to be a RAID-5 or a 0+1 or 10. In tests I did several years ago with one hardware vendor RAID-10 and 5 were very close (within a few IOPS) with RAID-5 eeking out the lead. They both blew RAID-1 away. In more recent tests I heard of from someone using another hardware vendor, RAID 0+1 eeked out over RAID-5 by a few IOPS and again blew RAID-1 out of the water. Obviously the tests were different so I recommend folks do their own testing with their own hardware. The fastest disk configs I am aware of are 6 and 8 disk RAID-10/0+1 setups with 8 disks supposedly being rock star fast if you have the room internally. To put it another way, if I had 8 disks, I certainly wouldn't be following the deployment guide config for those disks, it would be a RAID-10/0+1 setup. The 6 disk RAID-10s (The Dells I was using then didn't support 0+1) I built about 3 or 4 years ago were screaming fast compared to everything else at the time I had worked with. Now I don't do anything with hardware, I am more cerebral. ;o)
And note, obviously I am not talking software RAID, this is all hardware. Software RAID isn't something you use for production machines IMO.
joe
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rick KingslanSent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 10:17 AMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Raid suggestions for DC maybe OT
Dan - there will likely be as many opinions on this topic on this list as there are knots on joe's head.
Basic rules for a DC are this (IMHO):
Mirrored (or RAID1) for OS
Mirrored (or RAID1) for DIT and Logs
You can certainly host a third mirrored pair for the logs, but that will mostly depend upon how BUSY your AD is and how high the replication traffic, changes, updates etc. that you experience.
If you're asking this, you most likely have a newer AD, or are re-architecting. In either case, I'd start with the above and then monitor the performance with PerfMon. Make some decisions on whether to ADD the third mirror based upon the I/O and performance impact of log writes vs. impact on the database reads/writes.
Hope this helps!
Rick [msft]
--Posting is provided "AS IS", and confers no rights or warranties ...
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dan CoxSent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 1:31 AMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: [ActiveDir] Raid suggestions for DC maybe OT
What would be the suggested RAID and partitioning scheme for a Domain controller.
Any suggestions are appreciated.
Thanks.
Dan Cox | | | |
| Jonathan.Carr@xxxx.yyy
| | 11/08/2005 7:20 AM |
| it is a 2 hub (4 dc's each) with spokes design. Not
just one dc but each dc has a link to all the sites
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rick
KingslanSent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 9:47 AMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Raid suggestions
for DC maybe OT
Jonathan -
275 replication links seems, at least to my tired eyes this
AM, to be a lot. Are you running a branch office environment, or is this a
number of remote sites that link back to a single hub?
I'm interested as to why there are so many repl links to
your DCs, only if it's one DC. In my experience, that's not optimal, and
we can provide some prescriptive guidance to help optimize the topology with no
addition of hardware, just some tuning of site/subnet
configurations.
Rick [msft]
--Posting is provided "AS IS", and confers no rights or
warranties ...
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carr, Jonathan
(OFT)Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 6:00 AMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Raid suggestions
for DC maybe OT
I don't know about you but rebuilding DC's is not fun
stuff. Especially if it has 275 replication links to it from remote
DC's.. believe me spend the money on the fault
tolerance..
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
joeSent: Monday, November 07, 2005 10:09 PMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Raid suggestions
for DC maybe OT
How about just not partitioning the whole disk of the
larger disks? Note I didn't come up with that idea, that came from a young
whippersnapper I know out of Redmond whom I was discussing the fastest AD disk
configs with a few weeks ago. I haven't tried it but it makes sense to me. Just
allocate maybe 10-12GB of each of the 36GB drives across an array or
so.
Course you could always say screw the fault tolerant RAIDs,
this isn't Exchange, and run commando with a stripe set. If you have enough
extra DC capacity in the site you could have them all running really fast and
then when one blows it just goes away. Most applications that are written
properly for AD handle that just fine except apps that hard sync to a single DC.
If I have 7-8 disks, I wouldn't hesitate to put them in a
single RAID-10/0+1 type config. OS and Logs are snoring on most DCs. All of the
action is around the DIT unless you get that baby into memory which was the
first I think 20 responses I got from the whippersnapper. Use 64 bit. I know
but... use 64 bit... I know but.... use 64 bit.... I know but.... are you still
here, use 64 bit....
joe
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carr, Jonathan
(OFT)Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 6:54 AMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Raid suggestions
for DC maybe OT
We have allot of users coming back to our central site and
we use the following config.
adapter #1 ====> raid 1 ( 2 disk)
O/S
adapter #2 ====>raid 1 ( 2 disk) AD
LOGS
adapter #3 ===> raid 5 (3 disk) with
global hot spare AD Data
the key to this using this is that all the equipment (SCSI
disk,SCSI controller) is Ultra 320 spec with low latency and low seek
times (15 K rpm usually). The other thing that has been
noticed is that use as small a disk as you can get. (8 GB)
Some of the manufacturers are saying they only can supply 36GB drives on new
equipment. These drive are ok but the seek time goes up because of
the size of the drive
this config works good also
adapter #1 ====> raid 1 ( 2 disk)
O/S
adapter #2 ====>raid 1 ( 2 disk) AD
LOGS and raid 5 (3 disk) with global hot
spare (total of 6 on this channel)
hope this
helps
This e-mail, including
any attachments, may be confidential, privileged or otherwise legally protected.
It is intended only for the addressee. If you received this e-mail in error or
from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, do not disseminate, copy
or otherwise use this e-mail or its attachments. Please notify the sender
immediately by reply e-mail and delete the e-mail from your system.
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of joeSent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 11:12
AMTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir]
Raid suggestions for DC maybe OT
LOL. I actually pinged Rick on the "official" guidelines
previously for an Enterprise class DC with 4 disks, he was actually one of 4
people I queried since I hadn't seen what I considered good official docs on it.
Rick quoted the K3 Deployment guide which is definitely a good start. It
indicates
RAID 1 - OS
RAID 1 - Logs
RAID 1 or 0+1 - SYSVOL/DIT
If you have less than 1000 users using the DC it says you
can use one single RAID-1 for the whole thing. Though you have the same issue
here as you have for anything, how are the 1000 users using it and what else is
using it? Exchange? If so, I doubt I would do a single RAID-1 unless it was very
few users.
Otherwise you are looking at a minimum of 6 disks for all
RAID-1s or 8 disks if 0+1 and RAID-1.
When you actually look at it, the OS and the logs are using
little IOPS on a dedicated DC and splitting them off onto their own "disk" is
probably unneccessary. The DIT assuming it isn't all cached and is being heavily
hit (like say by Exchange) is raping the disk subsystem. When you have an app
that wants lots of IOPS what do you? You increase the number of spindles... So
for throughput, the fastest four disk configuration is going to
be a RAID-5 or a 0+1 or 10. In tests I did several years ago with one
hardware vendor RAID-10 and 5 were very close (within a few IOPS) with
RAID-5 eeking out the lead. They both blew RAID-1 away. In more recent tests I
heard of from someone using another hardware vendor, RAID 0+1 eeked out over
RAID-5 by a few IOPS and again blew RAID-1 out of the water. Obviously the
tests were different so I recommend folks do their own testing with their own
hardware. The fastest disk configs I am aware of are 6 and 8 disk RAID-10/0+1
setups with 8 disks supposedly being rock star fast if you have the room
internally. To put it another way, if I had 8 disks, I certainly wouldn't be
following the deployment guide config for those disks, it would be a RAID-10/0+1
setup. The 6 disk RAID-10s (The Dells I was using then didn't support 0+1) I
built about 3 or 4 years ago were screaming fast compared to everything else at
the time I had worked with. Now I don't do anything with hardware, I am more
cerebral. ;o)
And note, obviously I am not talking software RAID, this is
all hardware. Software RAID isn't something you use for production machines IMO.
joe
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rick
KingslanSent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 10:17 AMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Raid suggestions
for DC maybe OT
Dan - there will likely be as many opinions on this topic
on this list as there are knots on joe's head.
Basic rules for a DC are this (IMHO):
Mirrored (or RAID1) for OS
Mirrored (or RAID1) for DIT and Logs
You can certainly host a third mirrored pair for the logs,
but that will mostly depend upon how BUSY your AD is and how high the
replication traffic, changes, updates etc. that you
experience.
If you're asking this, you most likely have a newer AD, or
are re-architecting. In either case, I'd start with the above and then
monitor the performance with PerfMon. Make some decisions on whether to
ADD the third mirror based upon the I/O and performance impact of log writes vs.
impact on the database reads/writes.
Hope this helps!
Rick [msft]
--Posting is provided "AS IS", and confers no rights or
warranties ...
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dan
CoxSent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 1:31 AMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: [ActiveDir] Raid suggestions for
DC maybe OT
What would be the suggested RAID and partitioning
scheme for a Domain controller.
Any suggestions are appreciated.
Thanks.
Dan Cox | | | |
| Jonathan.Carr@xxxx.yyy
| | 11/08/2005 12:02 PM |
| I don't know about you but rebuilding DC's is not fun
stuff. Especially if it has 275 replication links to it from remote
DC's.. believe me spend the money on the fault
tolerance..
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
joeSent: Monday, November 07, 2005 10:09 PMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Raid suggestions
for DC maybe OT
How about just not partitioning the whole disk of the
larger disks? Note I didn't come up with that idea, that came from a young
whippersnapper I know out of Redmond whom I was discussing the fastest AD disk
configs with a few weeks ago. I haven't tried it but it makes sense to me. Just
allocate maybe 10-12GB of each of the 36GB drives across an array or
so.
Course you could always say screw the fault tolerant RAIDs,
this isn't Exchange, and run commando with a stripe set. If you have enough
extra DC capacity in the site you could have them all running really fast and
then when one blows it just goes away. Most applications that are written
properly for AD handle that just fine except apps that hard sync to a single DC.
If I have 7-8 disks, I wouldn't hesitate to put them in a
single RAID-10/0+1 type config. OS and Logs are snoring on most DCs. All of the
action is around the DIT unless you get that baby into memory which was the
first I think 20 responses I got from the whippersnapper. Use 64 bit. I know
but... use 64 bit... I know but.... use 64 bit.... I know but.... are you still
here, use 64 bit....
joe
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carr, Jonathan
(OFT)Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 6:54 AMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Raid suggestions
for DC maybe OT
We have allot of users coming back to our central site and
we use the following config.
adapter #1 ====> raid 1 ( 2 disk)
O/S
adapter #2 ====>raid 1 ( 2 disk) AD
LOGS
adapter #3 ===> raid 5 (3 disk) with
global hot spare AD Data
the key to this using this is that all the equipment (SCSI
disk,SCSI controller) is Ultra 320 spec with low latency and low seek
times (15 K rpm usually). The other thing that has been
noticed is that use as small a disk as you can get. (8 GB)
Some of the manufacturers are saying they only can supply 36GB drives on new
equipment. These drive are ok but the seek time goes up because of
the size of the drive
this config works good also
adapter #1 ====> raid 1 ( 2 disk)
O/S
adapter #2 ====>raid 1 ( 2 disk) AD
LOGS and raid 5 (3 disk) with global hot
spare (total of 6 on this channel)
hope this
helps
This e-mail, including
any attachments, may be confidential, privileged or otherwise legally protected.
It is intended only for the addressee. If you received this e-mail in error or
from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, do not disseminate, copy
or otherwise use this e-mail or its attachments. Please notify the sender
immediately by reply e-mail and delete the e-mail from your system.
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of joeSent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 11:12
AMTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir]
Raid suggestions for DC maybe OT
LOL. I actually pinged Rick on the "official" guidelines
previously for an Enterprise class DC with 4 disks, he was actually one of 4
people I queried since I hadn't seen what I considered good official docs on it.
Rick quoted the K3 Deployment guide which is definitely a good start. It
indicates
RAID 1 - OS
RAID 1 - Logs
RAID 1 or 0+1 - SYSVOL/DIT
If you have less than 1000 users using the DC it says you
can use one single RAID-1 for the whole thing. Though you have the same issue
here as you have for anything, how are the 1000 users using it and what else is
using it? Exchange? If so, I doubt I would do a single RAID-1 unless it was very
few users.
Otherwise you are looking at a minimum of 6 disks for all
RAID-1s or 8 disks if 0+1 and RAID-1.
When you actually look at it, the OS and the logs are using
little IOPS on a dedicated DC and splitting them off onto their own "disk" is
probably unneccessary. The DIT assuming it isn't all cached and is being heavily
hit (like say by Exchange) is raping the disk subsystem. When you have an app
that wants lots of IOPS what do you? You increase the number of spindles... So
for throughput, the fastest four disk configuration is going to
be a RAID-5 or a 0+1 or 10. In tests I did several years ago with one
hardware vendor RAID-10 and 5 were very close (within a few IOPS) with
RAID-5 eeking out the lead. They both blew RAID-1 away. In more recent tests I
heard of from someone using another hardware vendor, RAID 0+1 eeked out over
RAID-5 by a few IOPS and again blew RAID-1 out of the water. Obviously the
tests were different so I recommend folks do their own testing with their own
hardware. The fastest disk configs I am aware of are 6 and 8 disk RAID-10/0+1
setups with 8 disks supposedly being rock star fast if you have the room
internally. To put it another way, if I had 8 disks, I certainly wouldn't be
following the deployment guide config for those disks, it would be a RAID-10/0+1
setup. The 6 disk RAID-10s (The Dells I was using then didn't support 0+1) I
built about 3 or 4 years ago were screaming fast compared to everything else at
the time I had worked with. Now I don't do anything with hardware, I am more
cerebral. ;o)
And note, obviously I am not talking software RAID, this is
all hardware. Software RAID isn't something you use for production machines IMO.
joe
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rick
KingslanSent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 10:17 AMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Raid suggestions
for DC maybe OT
Dan - there will likely be as many opinions on this topic
on this list as there are knots on joe's head.
Basic rules for a DC are this (IMHO):
Mirrored (or RAID1) for OS
Mirrored (or RAID1) for DIT and Logs
You can certainly host a third mirrored pair for the logs,
but that will mostly depend upon how BUSY your AD is and how high the
replication traffic, changes, updates etc. that you
experience.
If you're asking this, you most likely have a newer AD, or
are re-architecting. In either case, I'd start with the above and then
monitor the performance with PerfMon. Make some decisions on whether to
ADD the third mirror based upon the I/O and performance impact of log writes vs.
impact on the database reads/writes.
Hope this helps!
Rick [msft]
--Posting is provided "AS IS", and confers no rights or
warranties ...
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dan
CoxSent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 1:31 AMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: [ActiveDir] Raid suggestions for
DC maybe OT
What would be the suggested RAID and partitioning
scheme for a Domain controller.
Any suggestions are appreciated.
Thanks.
Dan Cox | | | |
|
|