I found a MSFT site for planning domain controller capacity. If anyone is interested, you can find it via the URL http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windowsserver2003/library/DepKi t/4af3271a-4407-4ca5-9cd5-e05b79046d08.mspx
Edwin -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 3:42 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions Interesting. If that solution becomes a problem, have a look at http://www.centrify.com and see if you can change some of that :) Seriously, it is interesting and I'm interested to hear of the long term results as they occur. Shall we check back in a year or so? Al >From: "Rob MOIR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org >To: <ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org>,<ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org> >Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions >Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 19:07:28 -0000 > >Nope, DASD to a Apple G5 Xserve for a very small amount of Apple clients >(<10) with very high storage requirements. To be honest, the thing that >made me go for this solution in the end was that performance was better >using the native Apple stuff end to end and writing to SATA than it was >having to translate at some point on the network in order to write to SCSI. > >So now I have a nice complicated totally seperate Apple Open Directory >"Domain" with "trusts" into the Windows Forest so that all the pain of >making it work falls on me and the network support team here instead of on >the desktop user. > >Which is how it should be after all, and it doesn't do the old resume any >harm to have this all on there! > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Al Mulnick >Sent: Mon 07/11/2005 18:53 >To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org >Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions > >That's a desktop user? The apple desktop? > >I don't have a problem with SATA (an upgrade from PATA) if used as >designed. >It's designed for desktop storage. Not that it can't be adjusted to >server/enterprise, but it's price point and architecture are intended for >desktops (i.e. cheap but not as reliable as a shared resource). > >Used appropriately, I'm quite happy with it. But it's intended to be cheap >and replaceable. > >Cheap, fast, reliable - pick two (or something like that ;) > >That shouldn't last if history is any indication, but for now I'll try not >to build too many centrally required applications on that technology unless >I can put a lot of abstraction in front of it (large pools that aren't >bothered by the loss of several components at a time.) > > > > > > > > >From: "Rob MOIR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > >To: <ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org>,<ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org> > >Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions > >Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 18:36:10 -0000 > > > >I've deployed SATA for storage of large files in Apple XRaid units in a > >Raid 5+1 config, and so far so good. Ask me in 3 years if I'm still just >as > >happy ;-) but it was the only way to give the user what they wanted >inside > >the budget we had. > > > >One advantage of the XRaid is that it's fitted out from the get go to use > >SATA disks and the only reason you'd ever have to do anything to it is to > >replace a drive that you already know has gone bad. > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Al Mulnick > >Sent: Mon 07/11/2005 17:34 > >To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > >Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions > > > ><silly no-hair-color alert> > >SATA == Desktop drives. > > > >They weren't originally concepted to be enterprise class storage. I see > >them as being back-engineered to be used this way, but most of what I've > >seen has been to deploy them as a JBOD in situations where you can absorb > >the continuous loss of hardware and not impact performance and > >availability. > > Typically in pools of disk and hsm solutions (what is it that hsm is > >called now? ILM? :) > > > >If you plan to deploy DAS solutions (internal or external), SATA is not > >likely the way to go right now. You may want to wait a bit longer if the > >data is important. > > > > > >For large pools of inexpensive disks, SATA might be worthwhile to > >investigate if you have a large loading bay, a good support agreement, >and > >close access to the highway. > > > >-ajm > > > > > > > > >From: "Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]" > > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Reply-To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > > >To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > > >Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions > > >Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:13:19 -0800 > > > > > ><Stupid blonde alert> > > > > > >I personally have SATA experience in the tower/desktop world but none >in > > >the rack units. Are the physical connections any stronger in the rack > > >world? > > > > > >I like SCSI and IDE not only for their proven track record [server and > > >desktop respectively] but because the dang cables don't get knocked off > > >each time I reach into the case. Those cable connections on the back >of > > >the SATA drives are a little worrying. I've accidentally bumped the > > >connection off my workstation at home twice while adding the Happauge > >card > > >and what not. > > > > > >In SBSland early on we had issues with them getting loaded up, if they > >are > > >underpowered, we're seeing a bit of bottlenecks, and as one of the SBS > > >support gang said out of Mothership Los Colinas, if your vendor won't > > >guarantee that equipment for 3 years, do you really want to put that >data > > >on that device? > > > > > >So far the SATAs that we have running around in SBSland servers are >okay, > > >but I'll report back in another 2 years and let you know. > > > > > >I can't speak for the Dell rack stuff, but the Dell tower stuff...lemme > > >just say I'm glad Brian steered me towards HP. > > > > > > > > > > > >Rob MOIR wrote: > > >>>-----Original Message----- > > >>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick > > >>>Sent: 07 November 2005 15:13 > > >>>To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > > >>>Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >>>Bottom line, I would guess that two HP 360's (SCSI; I haven't been >made > > >>>comfortable with SATA reliability yet) or 140's with 1GB of memory >each > > >>>would be more than needed based on those parameters. > > >> > > >>I'm glad to hear someone else say this. SATA can work but you need to > > >>look closely at what you're buying and what the manufacturer >recommends. > > >>If the manufacturer doesn't trust their own products for the sort of > > >>24*7 hammering you often get in a server then why bet against them? >Who > > >>are we to assume we know a product better than the people who designed > > >>and built it? > > >> > > >> > > >>>If you virtualize anything on top of that, some other considerations > > >>>would be needed of course. (or Dell or IBM equivalent of course). > > >>> > > >> > > >>I'd still personally be uncomfortable with virtualising all my DCs, >even > > >>onto different physical virtual server hosts, I just don't believe in > > >>adding extra layers of complexity to fundamental network services if I > > >>can help it. > > >> > > >> > > > > > >-- > > >Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days? > > >http://www.threatcode.com > > > > > >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/ > > > >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/ > >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/ 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/
