List Archives

This forum is an archive of all posts to our mailing list over the past few years. The forum is set read only therefore to contribute you will need to join our list community. See more info about this here.

When subscribed to the list you should use your standard email client to send your posts to ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org.

List Archives

Unanswered Active Topics

Forums Search

Forums >ActiveDir Mail List Archive >List Archives

Subject: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice

Prev Next

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 2 of 2

Author

Messages

davewade

Posts:119

05/18/2006 11:20 AM
-----Original Message----- From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Brian Desmond Sent: Thu 18/05/2006 23:34 To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice 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 0Æ¯ 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 ******************************************************************** >

davewade

Posts:119

05/19/2006 12:00 PM
1) Exchange Hard Drive Config. a) Many Drives, prefereably Raid 0+1. At least one miror pair per 250 users for database. b) Seperate data that is accessed sequentially (logs) from random access data (data bases) c) Use one of the manufactueres tools. I know the HP one (see below) will consider both size and I/O. 2) Troubleshoot a) Look at the I/O queue length. I seem to remeber being told that 6 was a good benchmark, but I may be wrong. If you get large I/O queue length, especially on the log files, you are in trouble. b) Take a look at the HP storage calculator. I know its only HP storage, but will give you an idea if your config is reasonable:- http://h71019.www7.hp.com/activeanswers/Secure/116756-0-0-0-121.html -----Original Message----- From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of HBooGz Sent: Thu 18/05/2006 23:55 To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best PracticeSorry to bounce off topic.But what would you recommend for Exchange hard drive config ?even better where i can look for information on how to troubleshoot ( what to look for ) the diisk subsystem on an exchange box. Thanks. On 5/18/06, joe wrote: Classic Exchange type design. ;o)For AD, I pretty generally recommend people do a single 0Æ¯/10Ώ] first andthen 5 second and go with either because usually they don't have enoughslots 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 aspossible.The good thing is that 0Æ¯ will stand up to the IO (mostly DIT read) loadthat 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 incustomer sites. The log load on DCs is usually miniscule except in cases Ihave 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 bunchof other stuff on the DC.For file sharing, I would consider 0Æ¯ but 5 would be more likely since youprobably 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-thousanduser file servers I have seen. It is why most normal server admins reallyhave 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 problemsituation and able to quote IOPS stats off the top of their head and knowwhat 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 definitelya hit on rebuild but you have to ask yourself how often you expect that andwhether 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 haveto deal with weekly. If there are other benefits I want from 5 (say reducedcost for the space) and having slower rebuild is acceptable then that is perfectly fine. If you need something that is entirely transparent then youlook 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 topof my head. No perf gain except for the possible perf gains in doing avolume chkdsk or backup/restore of individual volumes maybe. Thepartitioning 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 Ccould be a complete fresh rebuild. joeΏ] 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 MagalhaesSent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 2:02 PMTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: Re: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best PracticeI know this is not exactly the RAID 5 Best practices but this is how Iusually setup and recommend the customers to setup their disks (if they canafford the hardware)RAID1 for the OSRAID1 for the logsRAID0Æ¯ for the databaseCarlosBrian 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 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 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.aspxList FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspxList FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/-- HBooGz:\> ******************************************************************** 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 ********************************************************************

AD00000769 User is Offline

Posts:0

05/19/2006 12:54 PM
Return Receipt Your RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice document: was Justin Leney/US/DCI received by: at: 05/18/2006 08:55:07 PM NEW! COSMEO, THE ONLINE HOMEWORK HELP TOOL BROUGHT TO YOU BY DISCOVERY CHANNEL. FREE TRIAL AT HTTP://WWW.COSMEO.COM This e-mail, and any attachment, is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, copying, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. The contents of this message may contain personal views which are not the views of Discovery Communications, Inc. (DCI). 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/

teoheras

Posts:5

05/20/2006 5:09 AM
We're consolidating the Exchange environment and we're going to create a seperate site for Exchange 2003 and assign 4 domain controllers to that site. Those DC's will be DL 380's with three (3) RAID 1 sets (OS, logs, databases). Does this sound on the mark? Teo On 5/18/06, joe wrote: 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 enoughslots for the disk internally to break it all up into a bunch of 1's and Iprefer 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) loadthat you get out of even really busy DCs. I may change my thoughts after Istart 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 Ihave heard of ~Eric testing some funky stuff in EEC and actually getting logwrite 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 youprobably want/need the space more than the speed. File sharing doesn'treally 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 reallyhave no clue what to look for in terms of IO load on servers but anyExchange 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 knowwhat they can get from the underlying disk subsystem. Exchange disk configsare 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 andwhether or not it is acceptable that you take a hit when you are in thatmode. 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 reducedcost for the space) and having slower rebuild is acceptable then that isperfectly 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 ofsecurity 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 avolume chkdsk or backup/restore of individual volumes maybe. Thepartitioning 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 Ccould be a complete fresh rebuild. joeΏ] Assuming they wouldn't consider a straight stripe set, recall DCs areall 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 MagalhaesSent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 2:02 PMTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: Re: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best PracticeI know this is not exactly the RAID 5 Best practices but this is how Iusually setup and recommend the customers to setup their disks (if they can afford the hardware)RAID1 for the OSRAID1 for the logsRAID0+1 for the databaseCarlosBrian 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.aspxList FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspxList FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/

bdesmond

Posts:996

05/20/2006 5:16 AM
I have two DL380s sitting in a hub site servicing upwards of 40K machines and 200K users with growth potential to double both numbers. They™re just DL380G4s, Dual CPU, 4GB, 3 RAID1 sets, os/sysvol, database, logs. Biggest issue I have is that the network guys have no gig ports in the facility they™re in and I™m starting to see the throughput peak over 50mbps on them. DL360 is probably fine for that application if I was taking a guess based on your information. You™ve got more AD hardware allocated for exchange than I do in a 60K mailbox/12 mb server environment¦ Thanks, Brian Desmond brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx c - 312.731.3132 From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Teo De Las Heras Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 1:08 PM To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice Joe, What would you recommend for remote sites that are part of an AD domain with 40,000 users (in terms of spindles)? If the remote site has 1,000 - 3,000 users would a DL360 be enough? Everything would be on a single RAID 1 partition. We're consolidating the Exchange environment and we're going to create a seperate site for Exchange 2003 and assign 4 domain controllers to that site. Those DC's will be DL 380's with three (3) RAID 1 sets (OS, logs, databases). Does this sound on the mark? Teo On 5/18/06, joe listmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 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/

teoheras

Posts:5

05/20/2006 5:27 AM
I have two DL380s sitting in a hub site servicing upwards of 40K machines and 200K users with growth potential to double both numbers. They're just DL380G4s, Dual CPU, 4GB, 3 RAID1 sets, os/sysvol, database, logs. Biggest issue I have is that the network guys have no gig ports in the facility they're in and I'm starting to see the throughput peak over 50mbps on them. DL360 is probably fine for that application if I was taking a guess based on your information. You've got more AD hardware allocated for exchange than I do in a 60K mailbox/12 mb server environment¦ Thanks,Brian Desmond brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx c - 312.731.3132 From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Teo De Las HerasSent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 1:08 PMTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice Joe, What would you recommend for remote sites that are part of an AD domain with 40,000 users (in terms of spindles)? If the remote site has 1,000 - 3,000 users would a DL360 be enough? Everything would be on a single RAID 1 partition. We're consolidating the Exchange environment and we're going to create a seperate site for Exchange 2003 and assign 4 domain controllers to that site. Those DC's will be DL 380's with three (3) RAID 1 sets (OS, logs, databases). Does this sound on the mark? Teo On 5/18/06, joe wrote: 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 enoughslots 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) loadthat 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 Ihave 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 youprobably 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 reallyhave 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 knowwhat 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 andwhether 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 reducedcost 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 avolume 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 Ccould be a complete fresh rebuild. joe Ώ] Assuming they wouldn't consider a straight stripe set, recall DCs areall 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 MagalhaesSent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 2:02 PM To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: Re: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best PracticeI 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 OSRAID1 for the logsRAID0+1 for the databaseCarlosBrian 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.aspxList FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspxList FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/

bdesmond

Posts:996

05/20/2006 5:48 AM
Yes the exchange DCs sit in a subnet of their own. There are three dual CPU GCs that sit there. They don™t even break a sweat. Thanks, Brian Desmond brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx c - 312.731.3132 From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Teo De Las Heras Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 1:26 PM To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice That's a huge user base. Do you also have Exchange 2003 deployed? Microsoft recommends one GC processor for every two Exchange 2003 processors. Teo On 5/20/06, Brian Desmond brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: I have two DL380s sitting in a hub site servicing upwards of 40K machines and 200K users with growth potential to double both numbers. They're just DL380G4s, Dual CPU, 4GB, 3 RAID1 sets, os/sysvol, database, logs. Biggest issue I have is that the network guys have no gig ports in the facility they're in and I'm starting to see the throughput peak over 50mbps on them. DL360 is probably fine for that application if I was taking a guess based on your information. You've got more AD hardware allocated for exchange than I do in a 60K mailbox/12 mb server environment¦ Thanks, Brian Desmond brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx c - 312.731.3132 From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Teo De Las Heras Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 1:08 PM To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice Joe, What would you recommend for remote sites that are part of an AD domain with 40,000 users (in terms of spindles)? If the remote site has 1,000 - 3,000 users would a DL360 be enough? Everything would be on a single RAID 1 partition. We're consolidating the Exchange environment and we're going to create a seperate site for Exchange 2003 and assign 4 domain controllers to that site. Those DC's will be DL 380's with three (3) RAID 1 sets (OS, logs, databases). Does this sound on the mark? Teo On 5/18/06, joe listmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 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 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 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/

rcrandall

Posts:0

05/20/2006 10:45 AM
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=875427 http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsServer/en/Library/2619a7f0-c6ab-435a-83db-34f1425107e71033.mspx?mfr=true http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/exchange/guides/E2k3Perf_ScalGuide/584a8e49-0890-4e0a-9f3a-7db1a0cef907.mspx?mfr=true One last place that is always good to build in some redundancy in capacity planning is with the designated failover site. On 5/20/06, Brian Desmond wrote: Yes the exchange DCs sit in a subnet of their own. There are three dual CPU GCs that sit there. They don't even break a sweat. Thanks,Brian Desmond brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx c - 312.731.3132 From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Teo De Las HerasSent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 1:26 PM To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: Re: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice That's a huge user base. Do you also have Exchange 2003 deployed? Microsoft recommends one GC processor for every two Exchange 2003 processors. Teo On 5/20/06, Brian Desmond wrote: I have two DL380s sitting in a hub site servicing upwards of 40K machines and 200K users with growth potential to double both numbers. They're just DL380G4s, Dual CPU, 4GB, 3 RAID1 sets, os/sysvol, database, logs. Biggest issue I have is that the network guys have no gig ports in the facility they're in and I'm starting to see the throughput peak over 50mbps on them. DL360 is probably fine for that application if I was taking a guess based on your information. You've got more AD hardware allocated for exchange than I do in a 60K mailbox/12 mb server environment¦ Thanks,Brian Desmond brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx c - 312.731.3132 From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Teo De Las HerasSent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 1:08 PMTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice Joe, What would you recommend for remote sites that are part of an AD domain with 40,000 users (in terms of spindles)? If the remote site has 1,000 - 3,000 users would a DL360 be enough? Everything would be on a single RAID 1 partition. We're consolidating the Exchange environment and we're going to create a seperate site for Exchange 2003 and assign 4 domain controllers to that site. Those DC's will be DL 380's with three (3) RAID 1 sets (OS, logs, databases). Does this sound on the mark? Teo On 5/18/06, joe wrote: 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 enoughslots 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) loadthat 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 Ihave 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 youprobably 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 reallyhave 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 knowwhat 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 andwhether 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 reducedcost 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 avolume 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 Ccould be a complete fresh rebuild. joe Ώ] Assuming they wouldn't consider a straight stripe set, recall DCs areall 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 MagalhaesSent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 2:02 PM To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: Re: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best PracticeI 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 OSRAID1 for the logsRAID0+1 for the databaseCarlosBrian 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.aspxList FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspxList FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/

AD000001402 User is Offline

Posts:0

05/20/2006 12:29 PM
This is how I™d configure a server for peace of mind. One drive for the OS, and then a separate RAID 5 for the data. When building the server from scratch, you can create an image of the system drive after you™re done. If the drive crashes, you can just restore the image, restore any system state backups you have, and then you™re all set. For the RAID 5 configuration, hardware RAID is always faster than RAID done by the OS. That being the case, I™d be hesitant to use a RAID controller built into a motherboard. I™d have a separate RAID controller instead. If the motherboard dies, you™d have to wait until the motherboard is replaced to see if it™ll recognize the existing RAID configuration. If you have a dedicated card, you can just move it onto the new motherboard and still keep your array. Just my two cents. Overall, there probably isn™t a single right answer here. 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

sbradcpa

Posts:496

05/23/2006 1:26 AM
Depends on the data..... These days with identity theft rampant... anything with a PII element would be on a desktop over my dead body. Software suppliers also tell me to run as admin and these days we need to push strongly back on that as well. Access works for a 'small' multi user app.. and I do mean small. Dave Wade wrote: Joe, Well all agree on that, however we are pretty much stuck with the apps in question "as-is" as the software is supplied "from above" (e.g. the stuff from www.ncer.org ). These days I copy the database onto a users PC and they run the reports and analysis locally, as that's what the software supplier tells them to do, and the users are happy with that. Dave. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of joe Sent: 23 May 2006 04:38 To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice Access is crap to use for a multiuser app. Don't discount the fact that the perf could be simply related to that. -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dave Wade Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 7:08 PM To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice Its the one thing that seems to give us performance issues. Last time I investigated things running slow, client was quiet (low CPU short disk queue, minimal paging) , network was quiet yet response was slow. Conclusion was that server was some how bottle neck. I must admit I didn't do much work on investigation. I think they should use appropriate tool such as msde (only a few users) but program is provided by central government, so we are stuck with it. I wonder if it was just running same time as backups perhaps... -----Original Message----- From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Brian Desmond Sent: Thu 18/05/2006 23:34 To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice 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 0Æ¯ 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 ******************************************************************** 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

05/23/2006 3:34 AM
There is quite a bit of docs out there on designing good disk subsystems for Exchange. It comes down to how many IOPS are needed. If your design isn't around that, you will probably end up with issues. -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of HBooGzSent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 6:56 PMTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: Re: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice Sorry to bounce off topic.But what would you recommend for Exchange hard drive config ?even better where i can look for information on how to troubleshoot ( what to look for ) the diisk subsystem on an exchange box. Thanks. On 5/18/06, joe wrote: Classic Exchange type design. ;o)For AD, I pretty generally recommend people do a single 0+1/10Ώ] first andthen 5 second and go with either because usually they don't have enoughslots 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 aspossible.The good thing is that 0+1 will stand up to the IO (mostly DIT read) loadthat 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 incustomer sites. The log load on DCs is usually miniscule except in cases Ihave 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 bunchof other stuff on the DC.For file sharing, I would consider 0+1 but 5 would be more likely since youprobably 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-thousanduser file servers I have seen. It is why most normal server admins reallyhave 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 problemsituation and able to quote IOPS stats off the top of their head and knowwhat 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 definitelya hit on rebuild but you have to ask yourself how often you expect that andwhether 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 haveto deal with weekly. If there are other benefits I want from 5 (say reducedcost for the space) and having slower rebuild is acceptable then that is perfectly fine. If you need something that is entirely transparent then youlook 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 topof my head. No perf gain except for the possible perf gains in doing avolume chkdsk or backup/restore of individual volumes maybe. Thepartitioning 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 Ccould be a complete fresh rebuild. joeΏ] 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 MagalhaesSent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 2:02 PMTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: Re: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best PracticeI know this is not exactly the RAID 5 Best practices but this is how Iusually setup and recommend the customers to setup their disks (if they canafford the hardware)RAID1 for the OSRAID1 for the logsRAID0+1 for the databaseCarlosBrian 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 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 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.aspxList FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspxList FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/-- HBooGz:\>

listmail

Posts:824

05/23/2006 3:39 AM
_____ From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dave Wade Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 7:08 PM To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice Its the one thing that seems to give us performance issues. Last time I investigated things running slow, client was quiet (low CPU short disk queue, minimal paging) , network was quiet yet response was slow. Conclusion was that server was some how bottle neck. I must admit I didn't do much work on investigation. I think they should use appropriate tool such as msde (only a few users) but program is provided by central government, so we are stuck with it. I wonder if it was just running same time as backups perhaps... -----Original Message----- From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Brian Desmond Sent: Thu 18/05/2006 23:34 To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice 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 0Æ¯ 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

05/23/2006 3:49 AM
How will the remote site users be using the local DC? Will Exchange be local? Anything besides domain function on the DC? If no to both of those items, a single RAID 1 will _probably_ be ok but that is shooting from the hip knowing nothing about your environment or your directory so YMMV. As Eric likes to say, for all cases you should be testing the perf and configurations in the lab and verifying the actual perf matches what you are shooting for. As for the Exchange site, seriously, I would go with a 0+1. I am not a fan of the 3 RAID-1 design for AD. It always overkill for the logs in every case I have seen (again with the exception of the testing Eric has told me about where he artificially pushes the write ops to the logs through the roof) and even the OS usually doesn't do much to the disk. The DIT is what tends to get pounded with Exchange. If you go to, I think (I am not a hardware guy), the 385 you get the 64 bit and can jam the machines with RAM and run x64 and cache as much of the DIT as possible and then disk criticallity goes way down once you have warmed the cache. -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Teo De Las HerasSent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 1:08 PMTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: Re: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice Joe, What would you recommend for remote sites that are part of an AD domain with 40,000 users (in terms of spindles)? If the remote site has 1,000 - 3,000 users would a DL360 be enough? Everything would be on a single RAID 1 partition. We're consolidating the Exchange environment and we're going to create a seperate site for Exchange 2003 and assign 4 domain controllers to that site. Those DC's will be DL 380's with three (3) RAID 1 sets (OS, logs, databases). Does this sound on the mark? Teo On 5/18/06, joe wrote: 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 enoughslots for the disk internally to break it all up into a bunch of 1's and Iprefer 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) loadthat you get out of even really busy DCs. I may change my thoughts after Istart 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 Ihave heard of ~Eric testing some funky stuff in EEC and actually getting logwrite 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 youprobably want/need the space more than the speed. File sharing doesn'treally 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 reallyhave no clue what to look for in terms of IO load on servers but anyExchange 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 knowwhat they can get from the underlying disk subsystem. Exchange disk configsare 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 andwhether or not it is acceptable that you take a hit when you are in thatmode. 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 reducedcost for the space) and having slower rebuild is acceptable then that isperfectly 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 ofsecurity 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 avolume chkdsk or backup/restore of individual volumes maybe. Thepartitioning 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 Ccould be a complete fresh rebuild. joeΏ] Assuming they wouldn't consider a straight stripe set, recall DCs areall 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 MagalhaesSent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 2:02 PMTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: Re: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best PracticeI know this is not exactly the RAID 5 Best practices but this is how Iusually setup and recommend the customers to setup their disks (if they can afford the hardware)RAID1 for the OSRAID1 for the logsRAID0+1 for the databaseCarlosBrian 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* 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 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.aspxList FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspxList FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/

listmail

Posts:824

05/23/2006 3:54 AM
This is a dart thrown against a wall. Use it for a starting point but make sure you verify it makes sense for your environment. I have been in environments where that recommendation is actually high and others where it is woefully low. Again with the Eric comments, test test test and verify you are getting the perf you want from the real numbers. -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Teo De Las HerasSent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 1:26 PMTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: Re: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice That's a huge user base. Do you also have Exchange 2003 deployed? Microsoft recommends one GC processor for every two Exchange 2003 processors. Teo On 5/20/06, Brian Desmond brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: I have two DL380s sitting in a hub site servicing upwards of 40K machines and 200K users with growth potential to double both numbers. They're just DL380G4s, Dual CPU, 4GB, 3 RAID1 sets, os/sysvol, database, logs. Biggest issue I have is that the network guys have no gig ports in the facility they're in and I'm starting to see the throughput peak over 50mbps on them. DL360 is probably fine for that application if I was taking a guess based on your information. You've got more AD hardware allocated for exchange than I do in a 60K mailbox/12 mb server environment¦ Thanks,Brian Desmond brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx c - 312.731.3132 From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Teo De Las HerasSent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 1:08 PMTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice Joe, What would you recommend for remote sites that are part of an AD domain with 40,000 users (in terms of spindles)? If the remote site has 1,000 - 3,000 users would a DL360 be enough? Everything would be on a single RAID 1 partition. We're consolidating the Exchange environment and we're going to create a seperate site for Exchange 2003 and assign 4 domain controllers to that site. Those DC's will be DL 380's with three (3) RAID 1 sets (OS, logs, databases). Does this sound on the mark? Teo On 5/18/06, joe listmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 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 enoughslots 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) loadthat 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 Ihave 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 youprobably 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 reallyhave 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 knowwhat 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 andwhether 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 reducedcost 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 avolume 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 Ccould be a complete fresh rebuild. joeΏ] Assuming they wouldn't consider a straight stripe set, recall DCs areall 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 MagalhaesSent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 2:02 PM To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: Re: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best PracticeI 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 OSRAID1 for the logsRAID0+1 for the databaseCarlosBrian 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* 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 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.aspxList FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspxList FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/

JefTek

Posts:52

05/23/2006 4:15 AM
Speaking of Exchange... Any good resources for Exchange info? (IE real world lessons, etc) I just got told today that we are going to be leaving a company we just bought on Exchange instead of migrating them to lotus notes (Talk about dodging a bullet). Sadly I have not done Exchange work since E2000, since I have been working at a large Notes shop for the past few years. My excitement is....I will get back to Exchange and outlook as Lotus Notes feels like I am using Email/Calendaring circa 1998. :( I'm going to grab the deployment guides, but I am concerned with catching up all I don't know, and how it will affect my AD environment. I'm afraid the timelines are quite aggressive so I need to get moving. Jef --------- http://www.jeftek.com From: listmail@xxxxxxxxxxxTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best PracticeDate: Mon, 22 May 2006 23:33:09 -0400 There is quite a bit of docs out there on designing good disk subsystems for Exchange. It comes down to how many IOPS are needed. If your design isn't around that, you will probably end up with issues. -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of HBooGzSent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 6:56 PMTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: Re: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice Sorry to bounce off topic.But what would you recommend for Exchange hard drive config ?even better where i can look for information on how to troubleshoot ( what to look for ) the diisk subsystem on an exchange box. Thanks. On 5/18/06, joe wrote: Classic Exchange type design. ;o)For AD, I pretty generally recommend people do a single 0+1/10Ώ] first andthen 5 second and go with either because usually they don't have enoughslots 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 aspossible.The good thing is that 0+1 will stand up to the IO (mostly DIT read) loadthat 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 incustomer sites. The log load on DCs is usually miniscule except in cases Ihave 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 bunchof other stuff on the DC.For file sharing, I would consider 0+1 but 5 would be more likely since youprobably 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-thousanduser file servers I have seen. It is why most normal server admins reallyhave 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 problemsituation and able to quote IOPS stats off the top of their head and knowwhat 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 definitelya hit on rebuild but you have to ask yourself how often you expect that andwhether 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 haveto deal with weekly. If there are other benefits I want from 5 (say reducedcost for the space) and having slower rebuild is acceptable then that is perfectly fine. If you need something that is entirely transparent then youlook 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 topof my head. No perf gain except for the possible perf gains in doing avolume chkdsk or backup/restore of individual volumes maybe. Thepartitioning 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 Ccould be a complete fresh rebuild. joeΏ] 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 MagalhaesSent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 2:02 PMTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: Re: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best PracticeI know this is not exactly the RAID 5 Best practices but this is how Iusually setup and recommend the customers to setup their disks (if they canafford the hardware)RAID1 for the OSRAID1 for the logsRAID0+1 for the databaseCarlosBrian 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.aspxList FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspxList FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/-- HBooGz:\> Join the next generation of Hotmail and you could win a trip to Africa Upgrade today

listmail

Posts:824

05/23/2006 4:50 AM
As someone else mentioned, for the storage aspects of Exchange, look at the HP storage docs, I keep hearing good things about them. In general go to every link on the Exchange site and read the white papers and docs. For AD itself, I tend to lean towards isolating DCs for Exchange into their own Exchange site. That way Exchange doesn't hurt AD and other apps don't hurt Exchange. It also tends to help with troubleshooting. -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jef KazimerSent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 12:10 AMTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice Speaking of Exchange... Any good resources for Exchange info? (IE real world lessons, etc) I just got told today that we are going to be leaving a company we just bought on Exchange instead of migrating them to lotus notes (Talk about dodging a bullet). Sadly I have not done Exchange work since E2000, since I have been working at a large Notes shop for the past few years. My excitement is....I will get back to Exchange and outlook as Lotus Notes feels like I am using Email/Calendaring circa 1998. :( I'm going to grab the deployment guides, but I am concerned with catching up all I don't know, and how it will affect my AD environment. I'm afraid the timelines are quite aggressive so I need to get moving. Jef --------- http://www.jeftek.com From: listmail@xxxxxxxxxxxTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best PracticeDate: Mon, 22 May 2006 23:33:09 -0400 There is quite a bit of docs out there on designing good disk subsystems for Exchange. It comes down to how many IOPS are needed. If your design isn't around that, you will probably end up with issues. -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of HBooGzSent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 6:56 PMTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: Re: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice Sorry to bounce off topic.But what would you recommend for Exchange hard drive config ?even better where i can look for information on how to troubleshoot ( what to look for ) the diisk subsystem on an exchange box. Thanks. On 5/18/06, joe wrote: Classic Exchange type design. ;o)For AD, I pretty generally recommend people do a single 0+1/10Ώ] first andthen 5 second and go with either because usually they don't have enoughslots 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 aspossible.The good thing is that 0+1 will stand up to the IO (mostly DIT read) loadthat 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 incustomer sites. The log load on DCs is usually miniscule except in cases Ihave 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 bunchof other stuff on the DC.For file sharing, I would consider 0+1 but 5 would be more likely since youprobably 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-thousanduser file servers I have seen. It is why most normal server admins reallyhave 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 problemsituation and able to quote IOPS stats off the top of their head and knowwhat 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 definitelya hit on rebuild but you have to ask yourself how often you expect that andwhether 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 haveto deal with weekly. If there are other benefits I want from 5 (say reducedcost for the space) and having slower rebuild is acceptable then that is perfectly fine. If you need something that is entirely transparent then youlook 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 topof my head. No perf gain except for the possible perf gains in doing avolume chkdsk or backup/restore of individual volumes maybe. Thepartitioning 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 Ccould be a complete fresh rebuild. joeΏ] 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 MagalhaesSent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 2:02 PMTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: Re: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best PracticeI know this is not exactly the RAID 5 Best practices but this is how Iusually setup and recommend the customers to setup their disks (if they canafford the hardware)RAID1 for the OSRAID1 for the logsRAID0+1 for the databaseCarlosBrian 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 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 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.aspxList FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspxList FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/-- HBooGz:\> Join the next generation of Hotmail and you could win a trip to Africa Upgrade today

bdesmond

Posts:996

05/23/2006 5:29 AM
Yeah “ if you can get through the boatloads of obnoxious registration logon crap on the HP site, there are Excel sheets for Exchange and sharepoint for figuring the hardware you need (storage and servers). Works great. Thanks, Brian Desmond brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx c - 312.731.3132 From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of joe Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 12:27 AM To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice As someone else mentioned, for the storage aspects of Exchange, look at the HP storage docs, I keep hearing good things about them. In general go to every link on the Exchange site and read the white papers and docs. For AD itself, I tend to lean towards isolating DCs for Exchange into their own Exchange site. That way Exchange doesn't hurt AD and other apps don't hurt Exchange. It also tends to help with troubleshooting. -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jef Kazimer Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 12:10 AM To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice Speaking of Exchange... Any good resources for Exchange info? (IE real world lessons, etc) I just got told today that we are going to be leaving a company we just bought on Exchange instead of migrating them to lotus notes (Talk about dodging a bullet). Sadly I have not done Exchange work since E2000, since I have been working at a large Notes shop for the past few years. My excitement is....I will get back to Exchange and outlook as Lotus Notes feels like I am using Email/Calendaring circa 1998. :( I'm going to grab the deployment guides, but I am concerned with catching up all I don't know, and how it will affect my AD environment. I'm afraid the timelines are quite aggressive so I need to get moving. Jef --------- http://www.jeftek.com From: listmail@xxxxxxxxxxx To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 23:33:09 -0400 There is quite a bit of docs out there on designing good disk subsystems for Exchange. It comes down to how many IOPS are needed. If your design isn't around that, you will probably end up with issues. -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of HBooGz Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 6:56 PM To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice Sorry to bounce off topic. But what would you recommend for Exchange hard drive config ? even better where i can look for information on how to troubleshoot ( what to look for ) the diisk subsystem on an exchange box. Thanks. On 5/18/06, joe listmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 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/ -- HBooGz:\> Join the next generation of Hotmail and you could win a trip to Africa Upgrade today

AD00000804 User is Offline

Posts:0

05/23/2006 7:09 AM
Exchange ideally should be run on RAID 1+0 if at all possible, even if it starts off with 4 disks although more is better and a SAN is preferable. Get the Exchange guides from the MS Technet site and start reading ... Good luck, Chuck

davewade

Posts:119

05/23/2006 8:17 AM
Joe, Well all agree on that, however we are pretty much stuck with the apps in question "as-is" as the software is supplied "from above" (e.g. the stuff from www.ncer.org). These days I copy the database onto a users PC and they run the reports and analysis locally, as that's what the software supplier tells them to do, and the users are happy with that. Dave. From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of joeSent: 23 May 2006 04:38To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice Access is crap to use for a multiuser app. Don't discount the fact that the perf could be simply related to that. -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dave WadeSent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 7:08 PMTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice Its the one thing that seems to give us performance issues. Last time I investigated things running slow, client was quiet (low CPU short disk queue, minimal paging) , network was quiet yet response was slow. Conclusion was that server was some how bottle neck. I must admit I didn't do much work on investigation. I think they should use appropriate tool such as msde (only a few users) but program is provided by central government, so we are stuck with it. I wonder if it was just running same time as backups perhaps... -----Original Message----- From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Brian Desmond Sent: Thu 18/05/2006 23:34 To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice 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 WadeSent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 6:22 PMTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice For file sharing, I would consider 0Æ¯ but 5 would be more likely since youprobably want/need the space more than the speed. File sharing doesn'treally beat the disks up relative to a busy DC even in large multi-thousanduser 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 reallyhave no clue what to look for in terms of IO load on servers but anyExchange Admin worth anything is looking at that right away in a problemsituation and able to quote IOPS stats off the top of their head and knowwhat they can get from the underlying disk subsystem. Exchange disk configsare 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

05/24/2006 1:14 AM
Yeah small as in the user has multiple personalities... :o) -- 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 Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:25 AM To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice Depends on the data..... These days with identity theft rampant... anything with a PII element would be on a desktop over my dead body. Software suppliers also tell me to run as admin and these days we need to push strongly back on that as well. Access works for a 'small' multi user app.. and I do mean small. Dave Wade wrote: > Joe, > > Well all agree on that, however we are pretty much stuck with the > apps in question "as-is" as the software is supplied "from above" > (e.g. the stuff from www.ncer.org ). These days I > copy the database onto a users PC and they run the reports and > analysis locally, as that's what the software supplier tells them to > do, and the users are happy with that. > > Dave. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of joe > Sent: 23 May 2006 04:38 > To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice > > Access is crap to use for a multiuser app. Don't discount the fact > that the perf could be simply related to that. > > -- > O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - > http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dave Wade > Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 7:08 PM > To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice > > Its the one thing that seems to give us performance issues. Last time > I investigated things running slow, client was quiet (low CPU short > disk queue, minimal paging) , network was quiet yet response was slow. > Conclusion was that server was some how bottle neck. I must admit I > didn't do much work on investigation. I think they should use > appropriate tool such as msde (only a few users) but program is > provided by central government, so we are stuck with it. I wonder if > it was just running same time as backups perhaps... > > -----Original Message----- > From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Brian Desmond > Sent: Thu 18/05/2006 23:34 > To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice > > 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 0Æ¯ 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 > > > ******************************************************************** > 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/

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 2 of 2

Forums >ActiveDir Mail List Archive >List Archives > [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice

ActiveForums 3.7

Syndicate

Friends

List Archives

List Archives

Friends

Members

Articles

Related Links

Ads