| Author | Messages | |
juergen
Posts:3
 | | 06/30/2010 9:25 PM |
| Hello
What is your opinion about the disk configuration for a domain controller
running in a virtual machine, do you use multiple separate disk volumes or
do you install everything on a single disk volume?
I have found a few articles that recommend using separate disk volumes from
a performance point of view.
Best practice disk configuration for a Domain Controller VM -
http://communities.vmware.com/message/845096
"Windows Domain Dontrollers disable OS-based write caching on the volume
containing the AD database. Therefore, if you store the AD database on the
same volume as other data (say, your OS), you will take a performance hit.
For this reason, it is still a good practice to store the AD database on a
separate volume. For the purposes of virtualisation, this volume can be just
a separate virtual disk. (Note: placing it on a separate partition on the
same virtual disk will not help.)"
Deployment Considerations for Virtualized Domain Controllers -
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd348449(WS.10).aspx
"Guest storage. Store the Active Directory database file (Ntds.dit), log
files, and SYSVOL files on a separate virtual disk from the operating system
files. Integration Components must be installed so that synthetic drivers
can be used for Integrated Drive Electronics (IDE) instead of emulation.
Virtual SCSI and IDE disks perform at the same speed when they use synthetic
drivers."
Are these performance reasons valid for a small environment with just about
2500 users and domain controllers running Windows Server 2008 R2 with 4 GB
RAM?
I assume that the complete AD database would be cached in RAM, and mainly
write access would go to disk.
In a virtual environment multiple VHD or VMDK files are often stored on the
same LUN of a shared storage infrastructure hosted by several physical disk
spindles. I am not sure if creating multiple VMDK files for one VM on the
same LUN will provide much performance benefit. Separating the VMDK files on
multiple LUNs of the shared infrastructure would increase the complexity of
the configuration.
What are the non performance related benefits of separate disk volumes?
Regards
Juergen
| | | |
| matheesha
Posts:34
| | 06/30/2010 9:57 PM |
| One benefit is preventing journal wrap issues for FRS. Because SYSVOL is
hopefully on a volume where the only activity is DS related and not due to
busy "C" drive.
M@
On 30 June 2010 21:22, ActiveDir <Activedir@hasslauer.com> wrote:
> Hello
>
> What is your opinion about the disk configuration for a domain controller
> running in a virtual machine, do you use multiple separate disk volumes or
> do you install everything on a single disk volume?
>
> I have found a few articles that recommend using separate disk volumes from
> a performance point of view.
>
> Best practice disk configuration for a Domain Controller VM -
> http://communities.vmware.com/message/845096
>
> “Windows Domain Dontrollers disable OS-based write caching on the volume
> containing the AD database. Therefore, if you store the AD database on the
> same volume as other data (say, your OS), you will take a performance hit.
> For this reason, it is still a good practice to store the AD database on a
> separate volume. For the purposes of virtualisation, this volume can be just
> a separate virtual disk. (Note: placing it on a separate partition on the
> same virtual disk will not help.)”
>
> Deployment Considerations for Virtualized Domain Controllers -
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd348449(WS.10).aspx
>
> “Guest storage. Store the Active Directory database file (Ntds.dit), log
> files, and SYSVOL files on a separate virtual disk from the operating system
> files. Integration Components must be installed so that synthetic drivers
> can be used for Integrated Drive Electronics (IDE) instead of emulation.
> Virtual SCSI and IDE disks perform at the same speed when they use synthetic
> drivers.”
>
> Are these performance reasons valid for a small environment with just about
> 2500 users and domain controllers running Windows Server 2008 R2 with 4 GB
> RAM?
>
> I assume that the complete AD database would be cached in RAM, and mainly
> write access would go to disk.
>
> In a virtual environment multiple VHD or VMDK files are often stored on the
> same LUN of a shared storage infrastructure hosted by several physical disk
> spindles. I am not sure if creating multiple VMDK files for one VM on the
> same LUN will provide much performance benefit. Separating the VMDK files on
> multiple LUNs of the shared infrastructure would increase the complexity of
> the configuration.
>
> What are the non performance related benefits of separate disk volumes?
>
> Regards
>
> Juergen
>
>
>
| | | |
| bdesmond
Posts:977
| | 06/30/2010 10:19 PM |
| The one thing I still like to split up is sysvol in environments where you have lots of distributed admins tinkering with GP. Doing this removes their ability to DoS your AD by filling up the DIT drive via populating junk in sysvol. Otherwise IMO it doesn't matter much. I usually just do one big RAID10 for DCs these days.
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
brian@briandesmond.com
c - 312.731.3132
From: activedir-owner@mail.activedir.org [mailto:activedir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of ActiveDir
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 1:22 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: [ActiveDir] Disk configuration of a virtual DC
Hello
What is your opinion about the disk configuration for a domain controller running in a virtual machine, do you use multiple separate disk volumes or do you install everything on a single disk volume?
I have found a few articles that recommend using separate disk volumes from a performance point of view.
Best practice disk configuration for a Domain Controller VM - http://communities.vmware.com/message/845096
"Windows Domain Dontrollers disable OS-based write caching on the volume containing the AD database. Therefore, if you store the AD database on the same volume as other data (say, your OS), you will take a performance hit.
For this reason, it is still a good practice to store the AD database on a separate volume. For the purposes of virtualisation, this volume can be just a separate virtual disk. (Note: placing it on a separate partition on the same virtual disk will not help.)"
Deployment Considerations for Virtualized Domain Controllers - http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd348449(WS.10).aspx
"Guest storage. Store the Active Directory database file (Ntds.dit), log files, and SYSVOL files on a separate virtual disk from the operating system files. Integration Components must be installed so that synthetic drivers can be used for Integrated Drive Electronics (IDE) instead of emulation. Virtual SCSI and IDE disks perform at the same speed when they use synthetic drivers."
Are these performance reasons valid for a small environment with just about 2500 users and domain controllers running Windows Server 2008 R2 with 4 GB RAM?
I assume that the complete AD database would be cached in RAM, and mainly write access would go to disk.
In a virtual environment multiple VHD or VMDK files are often stored on the same LUN of a shared storage infrastructure hosted by several physical disk spindles. I am not sure if creating multiple VMDK files for one VM on the same LUN will provide much performance benefit. Separating the VMDK files on multiple LUNs of the shared infrastructure would increase the complexity of the configuration.
What are the non performance related benefits of separate disk volumes?
Regards
Juergen
| | | |
| RobSilver
Posts:0
| | 07/01/2010 9:24 AM |
| Hi Juergen
I don't think that separate virtual disks will give you a performance benefit in and of itself. If the VHDs are on separate spindles, then yes. If they are on the same spindle, it could potentially degrade performance depending on what else you have with frequent read/write operations on the spindle. Is this on Hyper-V or the other virtualization technology?
That said, there are benefits to having separate VHDs. In the case of 2'500 users, the performance benefits on different spindles may be negligible.
For interest sake, are you making all of your DCs virtual, or are you opting to keep one of them as a physical machine?
Regards,
Rob
From: activedir-owner@mail.activedir.org [mailto:activedir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of ActiveDir
Sent: 30 June 2010 9:22 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: [ActiveDir] Disk configuration of a virtual DC
Hello
What is your opinion about the disk configuration for a domain controller running in a virtual machine, do you use multiple separate disk volumes or do you install everything on a single disk volume?
I have found a few articles that recommend using separate disk volumes from a performance point of view.
Best practice disk configuration for a Domain Controller VM - http://communities.vmware.com/message/845096
"Windows Domain Dontrollers disable OS-based write caching on the volume containing the AD database. Therefore, if you store the AD database on the same volume as other data (say, your OS), you will take a performance hit.
For this reason, it is still a good practice to store the AD database on a separate volume. For the purposes of virtualisation, this volume can be just a separate virtual disk. (Note: placing it on a separate partition on the same virtual disk will not help.)"
Deployment Considerations for Virtualized Domain Controllers - http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd348449(WS.10).aspx
"Guest storage. Store the Active Directory database file (Ntds.dit), log files, and SYSVOL files on a separate virtual disk from the operating system files. Integration Components must be installed so that synthetic drivers can be used for Integrated Drive Electronics (IDE) instead of emulation. Virtual SCSI and IDE disks perform at the same speed when they use synthetic drivers."
Are these performance reasons valid for a small environment with just about 2500 users and domain controllers running Windows Server 2008 R2 with 4 GB RAM?
I assume that the complete AD database would be cached in RAM, and mainly write access would go to disk.
In a virtual environment multiple VHD or VMDK files are often stored on the same LUN of a shared storage infrastructure hosted by several physical disk spindles. I am not sure if creating multiple VMDK files for one VM on the same LUN will provide much performance benefit. Separating the VMDK files on multiple LUNs of the shared infrastructure would increase the complexity of the configuration.
What are the non performance related benefits of separate disk volumes?
Regards
Juergen
| | | |
| juergen
Posts:3
| | 07/03/2010 10:40 AM |
| Thanks for all your comments.
The customer plans to host all DCs on VMware vSphere.
After the upgrade to Windows Server 2008 R2, FRS will likely be replaced
with DFS replication.
From: activedir-owner@mail.activedir.org
[mailto:activedir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of [Infraspec] Rob
Silver
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 10:19 AM
To: activedir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Disk configuration of a virtual DC
Hi Juergen
I don't think that separate virtual disks will give you a performance
benefit in and of itself. If the VHDs are on separate spindles, then yes.
If they are on the same spindle, it could potentially degrade performance
depending on what else you have with frequent read/write operations on the
spindle. Is this on Hyper-V or the other virtualization technology?
That said, there are benefits to having separate VHDs. In the case of 2'500
users, the performance benefits on different spindles may be negligible.
For interest sake, are you making all of your DCs virtual, or are you opting
to keep one of them as a physical machine?
Regards,
Rob
From: activedir-owner@mail.activedir.org
[mailto:activedir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of ActiveDir
Sent: 30 June 2010 9:22 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: [ActiveDir] Disk configuration of a virtual DC
Hello
What is your opinion about the disk configuration for a domain controller
running in a virtual machine, do you use multiple separate disk volumes or
do you install everything on a single disk volume?
I have found a few articles that recommend using separate disk volumes from
a performance point of view.
Best practice disk configuration for a Domain Controller VM -
http://communities.vmware.com/message/845096
"Windows Domain Dontrollers disable OS-based write caching on the volume
containing the AD database. Therefore, if you store the AD database on the
same volume as other data (say, your OS), you will take a performance hit.
For this reason, it is still a good practice to store the AD database on a
separate volume. For the purposes of virtualisation, this volume can be just
a separate virtual disk. (Note: placing it on a separate partition on the
same virtual disk will not help.)"
Deployment Considerations for Virtualized Domain Controllers -
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd348449(WS.10).aspx
"Guest storage. Store the Active Directory database file (Ntds.dit), log
files, and SYSVOL files on a separate virtual disk from the operating system
files. Integration Components must be installed so that synthetic drivers
can be used for Integrated Drive Electronics (IDE) instead of emulation.
Virtual SCSI and IDE disks perform at the same speed when they use synthetic
drivers."
Are these performance reasons valid for a small environment with just about
2500 users and domain controllers running Windows Server 2008 R2 with 4 GB
RAM?
I assume that the complete AD database would be cached in RAM, and mainly
write access would go to disk.
In a virtual environment multiple VHD or VMDK files are often stored on the
same LUN of a shared storage infrastructure hosted by several physical disk
spindles. I am not sure if creating multiple VMDK files for one VM on the
same LUN will provide much performance benefit. Separating the VMDK files on
multiple LUNs of the shared infrastructure would increase the complexity of
the configuration.
What are the non performance related benefits of separate disk volumes?
Regards
Juergen
| | | |
| PARRIS
Posts:291
| | 07/03/2010 12:35 PM |
| My only advice around this statement
The customer plans to host all DCs on VMware vSphere.
is the I hope the customer has more than one installation of vSphere, all DC's on one installation of ESX is a mare waiting to happen.
Regards,
Mark
MVP-DS,MCT,MCITP:EA:SA,MCSE
t.01372 740373
m.07801 690596
linkedin http://uk.linkedin.com/in/markparris
facebook http://facebook.com/markparris
twitter http://twitter.com/markparris
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir <Activedir@hasslauer.com>
Sender: "activedir-owner@mail.activedir.org"
<activedir-owner@mail.activedir.org>
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2010 10:36:36
To: activedir@mail.activedir.org<activedir@mail.activedir.org>
Reply-To: "activedir@mail.activedir.org" <activedir@mail.activedir.org>
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Disk configuration of a virtual DC
Thanks for all your comments.
The customer plans to host all DCs on VMware vSphere.
After the upgrade to Windows Server 2008 R2, FRS will likely be replaced with DFS replication.
From: activedir-owner@mail.activedir.org [mailto:activedir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of [Infraspec] Rob Silver
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 10:19 AM
To: activedir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Disk configuration of a virtual DC
Hi Juergen
I don’t think that separate virtual disks will give you a performance benefit in and of itself. If the VHDs are on separate spindles, then yes. If they are on the same spindle, it could potentially degrade performance depending on what else you have with frequent read/write operations on the spindle. Is this on Hyper-V or the other virtualization technology?
That said, there are benefits to having separate VHDs. In the case of 2’500 users, the performance benefits on different spindles may be negligible.
For interest sake, are you making all of your DCs virtual, or are you opting to keep one of them as a physical machine?
Regards,
Rob
From: activedir-owner@mail.activedir.org [mailto:activedir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of ActiveDir
Sent: 30 June 2010 9:22 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: [ActiveDir] Disk configuration of a virtual DC
Hello
What is your opinion about the disk configuration for a domain controller running in a virtual machine, do you use multiple separate disk volumes or do you install everything on a single disk volume?
I have found a few articles that recommend using separate disk volumes from a performance point of view.
Best practice disk configuration for a Domain Controller VM - http://communities.vmware.com/message/845096
“Windows Domain Dontrollers disable OS-based write caching on the volume containing the AD database. Therefore, if you store the AD database on the same volume as other data (say, your OS), you will take a performance hit.
For this reason, it is still a good practice to store the AD database on a separate volume. For the purposes of virtualisation, this volume can be just a separate virtual disk. (Note: placing it on a separate partition on the same virtual disk will not help.)”
Deployment Considerations for Virtualized Domain Controllers - http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd348449(WS.10).aspx
“Guest storage. Store the Active Directory database file (Ntds.dit), log files, and SYSVOL files on a separate virtual disk from the operating system files. Integration Components must be installed so that synthetic drivers can be used for Integrated Drive Electronics (IDE) instead of emulation. Virtual SCSI and IDE disks perform at the same speed when they use synthetic drivers.”
Are these performance reasons valid for a small environment with just about 2500 users and domain controllers running Windows Server 2008 R2 with 4 GB RAM?
I assume that the complete AD database would be cached in RAM, and mainly write access would go to disk.
In a virtual environment multiple VHD or VMDK files are often stored on the same LUN of a shared storage infrastructure hosted by several physical disk spindles. I am not sure if creating multiple VMDK files for one VM on the same LUN will provide much performance benefit. Separating the VMDK files on multiple LUNs of the shared infrastructure would increase the complexity of the configuration.
What are the non performance related benefits of separate disk volumes?
Regards
Juergen
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________
| | | |
| juergen
Posts:3
| | 07/03/2010 1:46 PM |
| The DCs are hosted on multiple ESX cluster in different geographical
locations.
From: activedir-owner@mail.activedir.org
[mailto:activedir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of Mark Parris
Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2010 1:34 PM
To: ActiveDir
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Disk configuration of a virtual DC
My only advice around this statement
The customer plans to host all DCs on VMware vSphere.
is the I hope the customer has more than one installation of vSphere, all
DC's on one installation of ESX is a mare waiting to happen.
Regards,
Mark
MVP-DS,MCT,MCITP:EA:SA,MCSE
t.01372 740373
m.07801 690596
linkedin http://uk.linkedin.com/in/markparris
facebook http://facebook.com/markparris
twitter http://twitter.com/markparris
_____
From: ActiveDir <Activedir@hasslauer.com>
Sender: "activedir-owner@mail.activedir.org"
<activedir-owner@mail.activedir.org>
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2010 10:36:36 +0100
To: activedir@mail.activedir.org<activedir@mail.activedir.org>
ReplyTo: "activedir@mail.activedir.org" <activedir@mail.activedir.org>
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Disk configuration of a virtual DC
Thanks for all your comments.
The customer plans to host all DCs on VMware vSphere.
After the upgrade to Windows Server 2008 R2, FRS will likely be replaced
with DFS replication.
From: activedir-owner@mail.activedir.org
[mailto:activedir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of [Infraspec] Rob
Silver
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 10:19 AM
To: activedir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Disk configuration of a virtual DC
Hi Juergen
I don't think that separate virtual disks will give you a performance
benefit in and of itself. If the VHDs are on separate spindles, then yes.
If they are on the same spindle, it could potentially degrade performance
depending on what else you have with frequent read/write operations on the
spindle. Is this on Hyper-V or the other virtualization technology?
That said, there are benefits to having separate VHDs. In the case of 2'500
users, the performance benefits on different spindles may be negligible.
For interest sake, are you making all of your DCs virtual, or are you opting
to keep one of them as a physical machine?
Regards,
Rob
From: activedir-owner@mail.activedir.org
[mailto:activedir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of ActiveDir
Sent: 30 June 2010 9:22 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: [ActiveDir] Disk configuration of a virtual DC
Hello
What is your opinion about the disk configuration for a domain controller
running in a virtual machine, do you use multiple separate disk volumes or
do you install everything on a single disk volume?
I have found a few articles that recommend using separate disk volumes from
a performance point of view.
Best practice disk configuration for a Domain Controller VM -
http://communities.vmware.com/message/845096
"Windows Domain Dontrollers disable OS-based write caching on the volume
containing the AD database. Therefore, if you store the AD database on the
same volume as other data (say, your OS), you will take a performance hit.
For this reason, it is still a good practice to store the AD database on a
separate volume. For the purposes of virtualisation, this volume can be just
a separate virtual disk. (Note: placing it on a separate partition on the
same virtual disk will not help.)"
Deployment Considerations for Virtualized Domain Controllers -
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd348449(WS.10).aspx
"Guest storage. Store the Active Directory database file (Ntds.dit), log
files, and SYSVOL files on a separate virtual disk from the operating system
files. Integration Components must be installed so that synthetic drivers
can be used for Integrated Drive Electronics (IDE) instead of emulation.
Virtual SCSI and IDE disks perform at the same speed when they use synthetic
drivers."
Are these performance reasons valid for a small environment with just about
2500 users and domain controllers running Windows Server 2008 R2 with 4 GB
RAM?
I assume that the complete AD database would be cached in RAM, and mainly
write access would go to disk.
In a virtual environment multiple VHD or VMDK files are often stored on the
same LUN of a shared storage infrastructure hosted by several physical disk
spindles. I am not sure if creating multiple VMDK files for one VM on the
same LUN will provide much performance benefit. Separating the VMDK files on
multiple LUNs of the shared infrastructure would increase the complexity of
the configuration.
What are the non performance related benefits of separate disk volumes?
Regards
Juergen
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________
| | | |
|
|