| Author | Messages | |
timofost@xxxx.yyy
 | | 05/18/2006 4:19 AM |
| Using a RAID
controller's configuration utility I can build and initialize a RAID 5
container. When installing the OS, I can, if I choose, create a
partition. Is this a good or bad idea? In other words, if I
partition RAID 5 container during the OS install will it make any difference if
I ever need to replace a drive and rebuild the array? Will the partition
table be recognized during the rebuild?
Thanks for your
input.
Tim | | | |
| bdesmond
Posts:996
| | 05/18/2006 4:54 AM |
| Tim-
It doesn™t really matter. The RAID controller has no idea
about the partition table. It just presents a LUN to the OS and the OS writes
to it.
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
c - 312.731.3132
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Timothy Foster
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 12:19 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
Using a
RAID controller's configuration utility I can build and initialize a RAID 5
container. When installing the OS, I can, if I choose, create a
partition. Is this a good or bad idea? In other words, if I
partition RAID 5 container during the OS install will it make any difference if
I ever need to replace a drive and rebuild the array? Will the partition
table be recognized during the rebuild?
Thanks for
your input.
Tim | | | |
| timofost@xxxx.yyy
| | 05/18/2006 5:30 AM |
| Thanks, Brian. That makes sense.
So if I have a 4 disk array on a single backplane, and
given that I want the benefits of RAID 5, is there any argument for configuring
more than one partition on the array? I realize that this is
potentially too much of an open-ended question, but I'm curious :-). The
basic premise is that this server would be a workhorse domain member/file
server. Would one partition - C: - combined with carefully
configured share and NTFS permissions provide adequate security? Or is it
better to put the OS on C: and the shares on D: ? Or does the benefit
of partitions lie somewhere else - for example, if I wanted to wipe C: and
reinstall the OS without touching D: ? (I'm not sure if I like this idea,
but as I mentioned, I'm curious...).
Thanks,
Tim
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brian
DesmondSent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 12:53 PMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best
Practice
Tim-
It doesn™t really
matter. The RAID controller has no idea about the partition table. It just
presents a LUN to the OS and the OS writes to it.
Thanks,Brian
Desmond
brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
c -
312.731.3132
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Timothy
FosterSent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 12:19 PMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best
Practice
Using a RAID controller's
configuration utility I can build and initialize a RAID 5 container. When
installing the OS, I can, if I choose, create a partition. Is this a good
or bad idea? In other words, if I partition RAID 5 container during the OS
install will it make any difference if I ever need to replace a drive and
rebuild the array? Will the partition table be recognized during the
rebuild?
Thanks for
your input.
Tim | | | |
| bdesmond
Posts:996
| | 05/18/2006 5:41 AM |
| I always do 12GB for C and the rest for D for ˜Data™.
I can format C and not worry about the Data.
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
c - 312.731.3132
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Timothy Foster
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 1:29 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
Thanks,
Brian. That makes sense.
So
if I have a 4 disk array on a single backplane, and given that I want the
benefits of RAID 5, is there any argument for configuring more than one
partition on the array? I realize that this is potentially too much
of an open-ended question, but I'm curious :-). The basic premise is that
this server would be a workhorse domain member/file server. Would one
partition - C: - combined with carefully configured share and NTFS permissions
provide adequate security? Or is it better to put the OS on C: and the shares
on D: ? Or does the benefit of partitions lie somewhere else - for
example, if I wanted to wipe C: and reinstall the OS without touching D:
? (I'm not sure if I like this idea, but as I mentioned, I'm curious...).
Thanks,
Tim
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brian Desmond
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 12:53 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
Tim-
It doesn™t really matter. The RAID controller has no idea
about the partition table. It just presents a LUN to the OS and the OS writes
to it.
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
c - 312.731.3132
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Timothy Foster
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 12:19 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
Using a
RAID controller's configuration utility I can build and initialize a RAID 5
container. When installing the OS, I can, if I choose, create a
partition. Is this a good or bad idea? In other words, if I
partition RAID 5 container during the OS install will it make any difference if
I ever need to replace a drive and rebuild the array? Will the partition
table be recognized during the rebuild?
Thanks for
your input.
Tim | | | |
| AD000001545
Posts:0
| | 05/18/2006 6:05 AM |
| I know this is not exactly the RAID 5 Best practices but this is how I
usually setup and recommend the customers to setup their disks (if they
can afford the hardware)
RAID1 for the OS
RAID1 for the logs
RAID0+1 for the database
Carlos
Brian Desmond wrote:
I always do 12GB for C and the rest for D for ˜Data™. I can format C
and not worry about the Data.
*Thanks,**
*Brian Desmond**
*brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*
*c - 312.731.3132*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Timothy Foster
*Sent:* Thursday, May 18, 2006 1:29 PM
*To:* ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
Thanks, Brian. That makes sense.
So if I have a 4 disk array on a single backplane, and given that I
want the benefits of RAID 5, is there any argument for configuring
more than one partition on the array? I realize that this is
potentially too much of an open-ended question, but I'm curious :-).
The basic premise is that this server would be a workhorse domain
member/file server. Would one partition - C: - combined with carefully
configured share and NTFS permissions provide adequate security? Or is
it better to put the OS on C: and the shares on D: ? Or does the
benefit of partitions lie somewhere else - for example, if I wanted to
wipe C: and reinstall the OS without touching D: ? (I'm not sure if I
like this idea, but as I mentioned, I'm curious...).
Thanks,
Tim
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Brian Desmond
*Sent:* Thursday, May 18, 2006 12:53 PM
*To:* ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
Tim-
It doesn™t really matter. The RAID controller has no idea about the
partition table. It just presents a LUN to the OS and the OS writes to it.
*Thanks,**
*Brian Desmond**
*brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*
*c - 312.731.3132*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Timothy Foster
*Sent:* Thursday, May 18, 2006 12:19 PM
*To:* ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
Using a RAID controller's configuration utility I can build and
initialize a RAID 5 container. When installing the OS, I can, if I
choose, create a partition. Is this a good or bad idea? In other
words, if I partition RAID 5 container during the OS install will it
make any difference if I ever need to replace a drive and rebuild the
array? Will the partition table be recognized during the rebuild?
Thanks for your input.
Tim
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/ | | | |
| davewade
Posts:119
| | 05/18/2006 6:14 AM |
| -----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Timothy Foster
Sent: Thu 18/05/2006 18:28
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc:
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
Thanks, Brian. That makes sense.
So if I have a 4 disk array on a single backplane, and given that I want the benefits of RAID 5, is there any argument for configuring more than one partition on the array? I realize that this is potentially too much of an open-ended question, but I'm curious :-). The basic premise is that this server would be a workhorse domain member/file server. Would one partition - C: - combined with carefully configured share and NTFS permissions provide adequate security? Or is it better to put the OS on C: and the shares on D: ? Or does the benefit of partitions lie somewhere else - for example, if I wanted to wipe C: and reinstall the OS without touching D: ? (I'm not sure if I like this idea, but as I mentioned, I'm curious...).
Thanks,
Tim
_____
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brian Desmond
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 12:53 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
Tim-
It doesn™t really matter. The RAID controller has no idea about the partition table. It just presents a LUN to the OS and the OS writes to it.
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
c - 312.731.3132
_____
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Timothy Foster
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 12:19 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
Using a RAID controller's configuration utility I can build and initialize a RAID 5 container. When installing the OS, I can, if I choose, create a partition. Is this a good or bad idea? In other words, if I partition RAID 5 container during the OS install will it make any difference if I ever need to replace a drive and rebuild the array? Will the partition table be recognized during the rebuild?
Thanks for your input.
Tim
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. As a public body, the Council may be required to disclose this email, or any response to it, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, unless the information in it is covered by one of the exemptions in the Act.
If you receive this email in error please notify Stockport e-Services via email.query@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and then permanently remove it from your system.
Thank you.
http://www.stockport.gov.uk
**********************************************************************
> | | | |
| AD00000804
Posts:0
| | 05/18/2006 6:26 AM |
| One advantage of RAID 5 over RAID 1 mirroring is that with a RAID 5 hot
spare, 2 drives can fail and you don't lose the data which is not possible with
2 RAID 1 mirrored drives. However RAID 5 is faster. Another
advantage is that you have to buy double the disks for RAID 1 as compared with
RAID 5.
Chuck | | | |
| deji
Posts:262
| | 05/18/2006 6:31 AM |
| >>>....but then you may have issues with the permissions on the second drive
if you get a different SID on the re-build....
On a file server? Do you typically use local file server accounts for your
permissioning?
Sincerely,
_____
(, / | /) /) /)
/---| (/_ ______ ___// _ // _
) / |_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_
(_/ /)
(/
Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
www.readymaids.com - we know IT
www.akomolafe.com
Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about
Yesterday? -anon
________________________________
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Dave Wade
Sent: Thu 5/18/2006 11:12 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
These days I am much more curious as to the benifits of RAID5? It slows the
I/O down. It can really crawl if you loose a drive and the server has to
rebuild the missing volume?
As for multiple partitions, I can't actually see any real advantage on a file
server. You can easily move the files to any drive and just re-share the
folders. I guess it does make for an easier wipe and build, but then you may
have issues with the permissions on the second drive if you get a different
SID on the re-build.
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Timothy Foster
Sent: Thu 18/05/2006 18:28
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc:
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
Thanks, Brian. That makes sense.
So if I have a 4 disk array on a single backplane, and given that I
want the benefits of RAID 5, is there any argument for configuring more than
one partition on the array? I realize that this is potentially too much of
an open-ended question, but I'm curious :-). The basic premise is that this
server would be a workhorse domain member/file server. Would one partition -
C: - combined with carefully configured share and NTFS permissions provide
adequate security? Or is it better to put the OS on C: and the shares on D: ?
Or does the benefit of partitions lie somewhere else - for example, if I
wanted to wipe C: and reinstall the OS without touching D: ? (I'm not sure
if I like this idea, but as I mentioned, I'm curious...).
Thanks,
Tim
________________________________
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brian Desmond
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 12:53 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
Tim-
It doesn't really matter. The RAID controller has no idea about the
partition table. It just presents a LUN to the OS and the OS writes to it.
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
c - 312.731.3132
________________________________
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Timothy Foster
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 12:19 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
Using a RAID controller's configuration utility I can build and
initialize a RAID 5 container. When installing the OS, I can, if I choose,
create a partition. Is this a good or bad idea? In other words, if I
partition RAID 5 container during the OS install will it make any difference
if I ever need to replace a drive and rebuild the array? Will the partition
table be recognized during the rebuild?
Thanks for your input.
Tim
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. As a public body, the Council may be required to disclose this
email, or any response to it, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000,
unless the information in it is covered by one of the exemptions in the Act.
If you receive this email in error please notify Stockport e-Services via
email.query@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and then permanently remove it from your system.
Thank you.
http://www.stockport.gov.uk
**********************************************************************
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/ | | | |
| timofost@xxxx.yyy
| | 05/18/2006 6:38 AM |
| These are good questions. With all the DFS goodness
in R2 maybe it is better to use, say RAID 1 and replicate out to other disk
arrays elsewhere on the network (e.g. NAS). Which brings up the whole
question of 'where is the weakest link?' - it is it the disk, the controller,
the backplane, the Cat5, the switch, the fiber, etc.
Tim
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dave
WadeSent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 2:12 PMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best
Practice
These days I am much more curious as to the benifits of RAID5? It
slows the I/O down. It can really crawl if you loose a drive and the server has
to rebuild the missing volume?
As for multiple partitions, I can't actually see any real advantage on a
file server. You can easily move the files to any drive and just
re-share the folders. I guess it does make for an easier wipe and build,
but then you may have issues with the permissions on the second drive if you get
a different SID on the re-build.
-----Original Message----- From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Timothy Foster
Sent: Thu 18/05/2006 18:28 To:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: Subject: RE:
[ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
Thanks, Brian. That makes
sense.
So if I have a 4 disk array on a single backplane,
and given that I want the benefits of RAID 5, is there any argument for
configuring more than one partition on the array? I realize that
this is potentially too much of an open-ended question, but I'm curious
:-). The basic premise is that this server would be a workhorse domain
member/file server. Would one partition - C: - combined with carefully
configured share and NTFS permissions provide adequate security? Or is it
better to put the OS on C: and the shares on D: ? Or does the
benefit of partitions lie somewhere else - for example, if I wanted to wipe C:
and reinstall the OS without touching D: ? (I'm not sure if I like this
idea, but as I mentioned, I'm curious...).
Thanks,
Tim
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brian
DesmondSent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 12:53 PMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5
Best Practice
Tim-
It doesn™t
really matter. The RAID controller has no idea about the partition table. It
just presents a LUN to the OS and the OS writes to it.
Thanks,Brian
Desmond
brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
c -
312.731.3132
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Timothy FosterSent: Thursday, May 18, 2006
12:19 PMTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject:
[ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
Using a RAID controller's
configuration utility I can build and initialize a RAID 5 container.
When installing the OS, I can, if I choose, create a partition. Is this
a good or bad idea? In other words, if I partition RAID 5 container
during the OS install will it make any difference if I ever need to replace a
drive and rebuild the array? Will the partition table be recognized
during the rebuild?
Thanks
for your input.
Tim
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. As a public body, the Council may be required to disclose
this email, or any response to it, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000,
unless the information in it is covered by one of the exemptions in the Act.
If you receive this email in error please notify Stockport e-Services via
email.query@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and then permanently remove it from your system.
Thank you.
http://www.stockport.gov.uk
********************************************************************** | | | |
| davewade
Posts:119
| | 05/18/2006 6:43 AM |
| -----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of ChuckGaff@xxxxxxx
Sent: Thu 18/05/2006 20:52
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc:
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
One advantage of RAID 5 over RAID 1 mirroring is that with a RAID 5 hot spare, 2 drives can fail and you don't lose the data which is not possible with 2 RAID 1 mirrored drives.
If the second drive fails before the Raid 5 array has re-built you will loose data.. A mirror will often re-build much quicker than Raid 5. Raid=5 performance is usually horrid while a re-build is in progress.
However RAID 5 is faster.
Don't you mean raid 1 is faster. And by a long way for write performance.
Another advantage is that you have to buy double the disks for RAID 1 as compared with RAID 5.
Disks are cheaper than servers. The extra perfromance on a mirror measn you may be able to get more users on the server.
Chuck
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. As a public body, the Council may be required to disclose this email, or any response to it, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, unless the information in it is covered by one of the exemptions in the Act.
If you receive this email in error please notify Stockport e-Services via email.query@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and then permanently remove it from your system.
Thank you.
http://www.stockport.gov.uk
**********************************************************************
> | | | |
| davewade
Posts:119
| | 05/18/2006 6:48 AM |
| -----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of deji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thu 18/05/2006 19:29
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc:
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
>>>....but then you may have issues with the permissions on the second drive
if you get a different SID on the re-build....
On a file server? Do you typically use local file server accounts for your
permissioning?
Sincerely,
_____
(, / | /) /) /)
/---| (/_ ______ ___// _ // _
) / |_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_
(_/ /)
(/
Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
www.readymaids.com - we know IT
www.akomolafe.com
Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about
Yesterday? -anon
________________________________
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Dave Wade
Sent: Thu 5/18/2006 11:12 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
These days I am much more curious as to the benifits of RAID5? It slows the
I/O down. It can really crawl if you loose a drive and the server has to
rebuild the missing volume?
As for multiple partitions, I can't actually see any real advantage on a file
server. You can easily move the files to any drive and just re-share the
folders. I guess it does make for an easier wipe and build, but then you may
have issues with the permissions on the second drive if you get a different
SID on the re-build.
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Timothy Foster
Sent: Thu 18/05/2006 18:28
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc:
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
Thanks, Brian. That makes sense.
So if I have a 4 disk array on a single backplane, and given that I
want the benefits of RAID 5, is there any argument for configuring more than
one partition on the array? I realize that this is potentially too much of
an open-ended question, but I'm curious :-). The basic premise is that this
server would be a workhorse domain member/file server. Would one partition -
C: - combined with carefully configured share and NTFS permissions provide
adequate security? Or is it better to put the OS on C: and the shares on D: ?
Or does the benefit of partitions lie somewhere else - for example, if I
wanted to wipe C: and reinstall the OS without touching D: ? (I'm not sure
if I like this idea, but as I mentioned, I'm curious...).
Thanks,
Tim
________________________________
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brian Desmond
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 12:53 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
Tim-
It doesn't really matter. The RAID controller has no idea about the
partition table. It just presents a LUN to the OS and the OS writes to it.
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
c - 312.731.3132
________________________________
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Timothy Foster
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 12:19 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
Using a RAID controller's configuration utility I can build and
initialize a RAID 5 container. When installing the OS, I can, if I choose,
create a partition. Is this a good or bad idea? In other words, if I
partition RAID 5 container during the OS install will it make any difference
if I ever need to replace a drive and rebuild the array? Will the partition
table be recognized during the rebuild?
Thanks for your input.
Tim
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. As a public body, the Council may be required to disclose this
email, or any response to it, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000,
unless the information in it is covered by one of the exemptions in the Act.
If you receive this email in error please notify Stockport e-Services via
email.query@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and then permanently remove it from your system.
Thank you.
http://www.stockport.gov.uk
**********************************************************************
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/
> | | | |
| AD00000804
Posts:0
| | 05/18/2006 7:11 AM |
| The cable harness and backplane are two places for single point of failure
on a single server, but if something can be clustered this resolves those
issues. However, the disk since it's one of the few mechanical components
of a server system is something to be concerned about since the changes of a
disk failure is probably greater on a well-built server than any other
component.
Chuck | | | |
| AD000001563
Posts:0
| | 05/18/2006 8:18 AM |
| What™s a reason for using a local group or
account on a file server?
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dave Wade
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 11:42
AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID
5 Best Practice
I said "may" not "typically".
There are reasons for using local accounts (or groups)...
-----Original Message-----
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of deji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thu 18/05/2006 19:29
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc:
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID
5 Best Practice
>>>....but then you may have issues with the
permissions on the second drive
if you get a different SID on the re-build....
On a file server? Do you typically use local file server accounts for your
permissioning?
Sincerely,
_____
(, / |
/)
/) /)
/---| (/_ ______ ___// _
// _
) / |_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_
(_/
/)
(/
Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
www.readymaids.com
- we know IT
www.akomolafe.com
Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about
Yesterday? -anon
________________________________
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Dave Wade
Sent: Thu 5/18/2006 11:12 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
These days I am much more curious as to the benifits of RAID5? It slows the
I/O down. It can really crawl if you loose a drive and the server has to
rebuild the missing volume?
As for multiple partitions, I can't actually see any real advantage on a file
server. You can easily move the files to any drive and just re-share the
folders. I guess it does make for an easier wipe and build, but then you may
have issues with the permissions on the second drive if you get a different
SID on the re-build.
-----Original Message-----
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Timothy Foster
Sent: Thu 18/05/2006 18:28
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc:
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5
Best Practice
Thanks, Brian. That makes
sense.
So if I have a 4 disk array on a
single backplane, and given that I
want the benefits of RAID 5, is there any argument for configuring more than
one partition on the array? I realize that this is potentially too much
of
an open-ended question, but I'm curious :-). The basic premise is that
this
server would be a workhorse domain member/file server. Would one
partition -
C: - combined with carefully configured share and NTFS permissions provide
adequate security? Or is it better to put the OS on C: and the shares on D: ?
Or does the benefit of partitions lie somewhere else - for example, if I
wanted to wipe C: and reinstall the OS without touching D: ? (I'm not
sure
if I like this idea, but as I mentioned, I'm curious...).
Thanks,
Tim
________________________________
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Brian Desmond
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 12:53
PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5
Best Practice
Tim-
It doesn't really matter. The RAID
controller has no idea about the
partition table. It just presents a LUN to the OS and the OS writes to it.
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx mailto:brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
c - 312.731.3132
________________________________
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Timothy Foster
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 12:19
PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5
Best Practice
Using a RAID controller's
configuration utility I can build and
initialize a RAID 5 container. When installing the OS, I can, if I
choose,
create a partition. Is this a good or bad idea? In other words, if
I
partition RAID 5 container during the OS install will it make any difference
if I ever need to replace a drive and rebuild the array? Will the
partition
table be recognized during the rebuild?
Thanks for your input.
Tim
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. As a public body, the Council may be required to disclose this
email, or any response to it, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000,
unless the information in it is covered by one of the exemptions in the Act.
If you receive this email in error please notify Stockport
e-Services via
email.query@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and then permanently remove it from your system.
Thank you.
http://www.stockport.gov.uk
**********************************************************************
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/ | | | |
| davewade
Posts:119
| | 05/18/2006 8:54 AM |
| -----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Abouelnasr, Jerry
Sent: Thu 18/05/2006 21:16
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc:
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
What™s a reason for using a local group or account on a file server?
_____
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dave Wade
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 11:42 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
I said "may" not "typically". There are reasons for using local accounts (or groups)...
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of deji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thu 18/05/2006 19:29
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc:
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
>>>....but then you may have issues with the permissions on the second drive
if you get a different SID on the re-build....
On a file server? Do you typically use local file server accounts for your
permissioning?
Sincerely,
_____
(, / | /) /) /)
/---| (/_ ______ ___// _ // _
) / |_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_
(_/ /)
(/
Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
www.readymaids.com - we know IT
www.akomolafe.com
Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about
Yesterday? -anon
________________________________
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Dave Wade
Sent: Thu 5/18/2006 11:12 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
These days I am much more curious as to the benifits of RAID5? It slows the
I/O down. It can really crawl if you loose a drive and the server has to
rebuild the missing volume?
As for multiple partitions, I can't actually see any real advantage on a file
server. You can easily move the files to any drive and just re-share the
folders. I guess it does make for an easier wipe and build, but then you may
have issues with the permissions on the second drive if you get a different
SID on the re-build.
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Timothy Foster
Sent: Thu 18/05/2006 18:28
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc:
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
Thanks, Brian. That makes sense.
So if I have a 4 disk array on a single backplane, and given that I
want the benefits of RAID 5, is there any argument for configuring more than
one partition on the array? I realize that this is potentially too much of
an open-ended question, but I'm curious :-). The basic premise is that this
server would be a workhorse domain member/file server. Would one partition -
C: - combined with carefully configured share and NTFS permissions provide
adequate security? Or is it better to put the OS on C: and the shares on D: ?
Or does the benefit of partitions lie somewhere else - for example, if I
wanted to wipe C: and reinstall the OS without touching D: ? (I'm not sure
if I like this idea, but as I mentioned, I'm curious...).
Thanks,
Tim
________________________________
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brian Desmond
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 12:53 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
Tim-
It doesn't really matter. The RAID controller has no idea about the
partition table. It just presents a LUN to the OS and the OS writes to it.
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
c - 312.731.3132
________________________________
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Timothy Foster
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 12:19 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
Using a RAID controller's configuration utility I can build and
initialize a RAID 5 container. When installing the OS, I can, if I choose,
create a partition. Is this a good or bad idea? In other words, if I
partition RAID 5 container during the OS install will it make any difference
if I ever need to replace a drive and rebuild the array? Will the partition
table be recognized during the rebuild?
Thanks for your input.
Tim
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. As a public body, the Council may be required to disclose this
email, or any response to it, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000,
unless the information in it is covered by one of the exemptions in the Act.
If you receive this email in error please notify Stockport e-Services via
email.query@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and then permanently remove it from your system.
Thank you.
http://www.stockport.gov.uk
**********************************************************************
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/
> | | | |
| listmail
Posts:824
| | 05/18/2006 9:35 AM |
| _____
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dave Wade
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 4:54 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
because you want something to work if no domain is available, perhaps
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Abouelnasr, Jerry
Sent: Thu 18/05/2006 21:16
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc:
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
What's a reason for using a local group or account on a file server?
_____
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dave Wade
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 11:42 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
I said "may" not "typically". There are reasons for using local accounts (or
groups)...
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of deji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thu 18/05/2006 19:29
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc:
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
>>>....but then you may have issues with the permissions on the second drive
if you get a different SID on the re-build....
On a file server? Do you typically use local file server accounts for your
permissioning?
Sincerely,
_____
(, / | /) /) /)
/---| (/_ ______ ___// _ // _
) / |_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_
(_/ /)
(/
Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
www.readymaids.com - we know IT
www.akomolafe.com
Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about
Yesterday? -anon
________________________________
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Dave Wade
Sent: Thu 5/18/2006 11:12 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
These days I am much more curious as to the benifits of RAID5? It slows the
I/O down. It can really crawl if you loose a drive and the server has to
rebuild the missing volume?
As for multiple partitions, I can't actually see any real advantage on a
file
server. You can easily move the files to any drive and just re-share the
folders. I guess it does make for an easier wipe and build, but then you may
have issues with the permissions on the second drive if you get a different
SID on the re-build.
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Timothy Foster
Sent: Thu 18/05/2006 18:28
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc:
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
Thanks, Brian. That makes sense.
So if I have a 4 disk array on a single backplane, and given that I
want the benefits of RAID 5, is there any argument for configuring more than
one partition on the array? I realize that this is potentially too much of
an open-ended question, but I'm curious :-). The basic premise is that this
server would be a workhorse domain member/file server. Would one partition
-
C: - combined with carefully configured share and NTFS permissions provide
adequate security? Or is it better to put the OS on C: and the shares on D:
?
Or does the benefit of partitions lie somewhere else - for example, if I
wanted to wipe C: and reinstall the OS without touching D: ? (I'm not sure
if I like this idea, but as I mentioned, I'm curious...).
Thanks,
Tim
________________________________
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brian Desmond
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 12:53 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
Tim-
It doesn't really matter. The RAID controller has no idea about the
partition table. It just presents a LUN to the OS and the OS writes to it.
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
c - 312.731.3132
________________________________
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Timothy Foster
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 12:19 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
Using a RAID controller's configuration utility I can build and
initialize a RAID 5 container. When installing the OS, I can, if I choose,
create a partition. Is this a good or bad idea? In other words, if I
partition RAID 5 container during the OS install will it make any difference
if I ever need to replace a drive and rebuild the array? Will the partition
table be recognized during the rebuild?
Thanks for your input.
Tim
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. As a public body, the Council may be required to disclose
this
email, or any response to it, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000,
unless the information in it is covered by one of the exemptions in the Act.
If you receive this email in error please notify Stockport e-Services via
email.query@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and then permanently remove it from your
system.
Thank you.
http://www.stockport.gov.uk
**********************************************************************
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/
> | | | |
| listmail
Posts:824
| | 05/18/2006 9:59 AM |
| Classic Exchange type design. ;o)
For AD, I pretty generally recommend people do a single 0+1/10Ώ] first and
then 5 second and go with either because usually they don't have enough
slots for the disk internally to break it all up into a bunch of 1's and I
prefer the disk internal for AD and you want as many spindles in the set as
possible.
The good thing is that 0+1 will stand up to the IO (mostly DIT read) load
that you get out of even really busy DCs. I may change my thoughts after I
start seeing big x64 machines cruising along, haven't seen any yet in
customer sites. The log load on DCs is usually miniscule except in cases I
have heard of ~Eric testing some funky stuff in EEC and actually getting log
write ops into triple digits. Ditto for OS too unless you are doing a bunch
of other stuff on the DC.
For file sharing, I would consider 0+1 but 5 would be more likely since you
probably want/need the space more than the speed. File sharing doesn't
really beat the disks up relative to a busy DC even in large multi-thousand
user file servers I have seen. It is why most normal server admins really
have no clue what to look for in terms of IO load on servers but any
Exchange Admin worth anything is looking at that right away in a problem
situation and able to quote IOPS stats off the top of their head and know
what they can get from the underlying disk subsystem. Exchange disk configs
are critical.
Anyway, I don't have a problem with 5 for file servers. There is definitely
a hit on rebuild but you have to ask yourself how often you expect that and
whether or not it is acceptable that you take a hit when you are in that
mode. I consider the fault tolerance for emergencies, not something I have
to deal with weekly. If there are other benefits I want from 5 (say reduced
cost for the space) and having slower rebuild is acceptable then that is
perfectly fine. If you need something that is entirely transparent then you
look at other solutions and you start spending more money.
As for logically partitioning the underlying disk. Not sure what kind of
security gains you are expecting there. Nothing I can think of off the top
of my head. No perf gain except for the possible perf gains in doing a
volume chkdsk or backup/restore of individual volumes maybe. The
partitioning for logical separate of binaries in data can be a good thing.
Kind of nice to know that you absolutely need the D drive back but the C
could be a complete fresh rebuild.
joe
Ώ] Assuming they wouldn't consider a straight stripe set, recall DCs are
all duplicates and a big stripe set is going to be the fastest...
--
O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition -
http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carlos Magalhaes
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 2:02 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
I know this is not exactly the RAID 5 Best practices but this is how I
usually setup and recommend the customers to setup their disks (if they can
afford the hardware)
RAID1 for the OS
RAID1 for the logs
RAID0+1 for the database
Carlos
Brian Desmond wrote:
>
> I always do 12GB for C and the rest for D for 'Data'. I can format C
> and not worry about the Data.
>
> *Thanks,**
> *Brian Desmond**
>
> *brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*
>
> *c - 312.731.3132*
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
> *From:* ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Timothy
> Foster
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 18, 2006 1:29 PM
> *To:* ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
>
> Thanks, Brian. That makes sense.
>
> So if I have a 4 disk array on a single backplane, and given that I
> want the benefits of RAID 5, is there any argument for configuring
> more than one partition on the array? I realize that this is
> potentially too much of an open-ended question, but I'm curious :-).
> The basic premise is that this server would be a workhorse domain
> member/file server. Would one partition - C: - combined with carefully
> configured share and NTFS permissions provide adequate security? Or is
> it better to put the OS on C: and the shares on D: ? Or does the
> benefit of partitions lie somewhere else - for example, if I wanted to
> wipe C: and reinstall the OS without touching D: ? (I'm not sure if I
> like this idea, but as I mentioned, I'm curious...).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tim
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
> *From:* ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Brian
> Desmond
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 18, 2006 12:53 PM
> *To:* ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
>
> Tim-
>
> It doesn't really matter. The RAID controller has no idea about the
> partition table. It just presents a LUN to the OS and the OS writes to it.
>
> *Thanks,**
> *Brian Desmond**
>
> *brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*
>
> *c - 312.731.3132*
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
> *From:* ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Timothy
> Foster
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 18, 2006 12:19 PM
> *To:* ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
>
> Using a RAID controller's configuration utility I can build and
> initialize a RAID 5 container. When installing the OS, I can, if I
> choose, create a partition. Is this a good or bad idea? In other
> words, if I partition RAID 5 container during the OS install will it
> make any difference if I ever need to replace a drive and rebuild the
> array? Will the partition table be recognized during the rebuild?
>
> Thanks for your input.
>
> Tim
>
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/
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/ | | | |
| davewade
Posts:119
| | 05/18/2006 10:22 AM |
| For file sharing, I would consider 0Ư but 5 would be more likely since you
probably want/need the space more than the speed. File sharing doesn't
really beat the disks up relative to a busy DC even in large multi-thousand
user file servers I have seen.
What about when some idiot user sets up an Access database on one and runs "inappropriate" reports against it..
It is why most normal server admins really
have no clue what to look for in terms of IO load on servers but any
Exchange Admin worth anything is looking at that right away in a problem
situation and able to quote IOPS stats off the top of their head and know
what they can get from the underlying disk subsystem. Exchange disk configs
are critical.
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. As a public body, the Council may be required to disclose this email, or any response to it, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, unless the information in it is covered by one of the exemptions in the Act.
If you receive this email in error please notify Stockport e-Services via email.query@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and then permanently remove it from your system.
Thank you.
http://www.stockport.gov.uk
**********************************************************************
> | | | |
| listmail
Posts:824
| | 05/18/2006 10:33 AM |
| _____
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dave Wade
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 6:22 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
For file sharing, I would consider 0Ư but 5 would be more likely since you
probably want/need the space more than the speed. File sharing doesn't
really beat the disks up relative to a busy DC even in large multi-thousand
user file servers I have seen.
What about when some idiot user sets up an Access database on one and runs
"inappropriate" reports against it..
It is why most normal server admins really
have no clue what to look for in terms of IO load on servers but any
Exchange Admin worth anything is looking at that right away in a problem
situation and able to quote IOPS stats off the top of their head and know
what they can get from the underlying disk subsystem. Exchange disk configs
are critical.
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. As a public body, the Council may be required to disclose
this email, or any response to it, under the Freedom of Information Act
2000, unless the information in it is covered by one of the exemptions in
the Act.
If you receive this email in error please notify Stockport e-Services via
email.query@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and then permanently remove it from your
system.
Thank you.
http://www.stockport.gov.uk
**********************************************************************
> | | | |
| bdesmond
Posts:996
| | 05/18/2006 10:42 AM |
| Access database will likely get cached on the client in memory,
in any case it™d be all read ops. Access doesn™t cache report output.
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
c - 312.731.3132
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dave Wade
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 6:22 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
For file sharing, I would consider 0Ư but 5 would be more likely since you
probably want/need the space more than the speed. File sharing doesn't
really beat the disks up relative to a busy DC even in large multi-thousand
user file servers I have seen.
What about when
some idiot user sets up an Access database on one and runs
"inappropriate" reports against it..
It
is why most normal server admins really
have no clue what to look for in terms of IO load on servers but any
Exchange Admin worth anything is looking at that right away in a problem
situation and able to quote IOPS stats off the top of their head and know
what they can get from the underlying disk subsystem. Exchange disk configs
are critical.
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are
confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to
whom they
are addressed. As a public body, the Council may be required
to disclose this email, or any response to it, under the Freedom of Information
Act 2000, unless the information in it is covered by one of the exemptions in
the Act.
If you receive this email in error please notify Stockport
e-Services via email.query@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
and then permanently remove it from your system.
Thank you.
http://www.stockport.gov.uk
********************************************************************** | | | |
| hboogz
Posts:72
| | 05/18/2006 11:10 AM |
| | Message body was not found. | | | |
|
|