ROFL!
That was more of a case of purposely refusing to
acknowledge software RAID versus truly understanding what it is. I have had far
more than my share of times trying to rebuild software raid configs.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darren Mar-Elia
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 6:14 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration
Software RAID is where the OS (in this case) handles the
striping of the data rather than the hardware (usually the
controller).
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 3:05 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration
o Software RAID? What's that?
o Yeah I am not a fan of mirrors. I like lots of
spindles. But then I tend to work with big busy directories with
Exchange beating on it. Being 64 bit you don't have to worry _as much_
assuming you have enough RAM to cache your entire DIT but you still have to load
that baby in the first place so I would still recommend RAID 0+1, 10, or 5 or if
you don't care about fault tolerance the fastest is RAID-0.
o I would say if you are going 64 bit, make sure you make
it a priority to get enough RAM to hold your entire DIT. That is the cool
thing about getting 64 bit.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 5:12 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration
There would be a little more to gain than that but often that's the
reason. joe might point out that a two mirror configuration is not his
optimal configuration. I'm pretty sure he'd also point out that compared with
software raid, that he'd take that option. :)
I can honestly say I'd agree with him on this one. Software mirroring for
this type of application is never a good idea. The slower spindle speeds
likely won't be enough of an issue to matter in your configuration. Unless you
have a very large DIT <queue jokes here> or applications that pound the
snot out of the individual servers spindle speed won't be nearly as important.
Since it's 64 bit you're after, spend some money on the memory and take
advantage of the cache as much as you can.
Al
On 6/22/06, Noah
Eiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
What would the partitions on the first configuration gain you (over just a
single C:)? I thought the idea behind placing NTDS, etc on something
_besides_ C: was to get the performance benefits of extra spindles (as in
#2).
-- nme
-----Original Message-----
From: Al Lilianstrom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 1:24 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration
We have some budget money to replace domain controllers this year. Not
all of them but probably half of them. We've pretty much decided on 64
bit Dell PowerEdge servers. Most of the discussion is about disk
configuration. Two schools of thought exist here.
1) 2x73GB 15K drives in RAID1. Carve up the volume at the OS level with
20GB or so for the OS and the remainder for NTDS, Sysvol, and system
state backups
2) Two sets of 2x73 10K drives in RAID1. The first set is for the OS,
the second is for NTDS, Sysvol, and system state backups.
I've always liked physically separating the OS from the application
data. Others here like carving up the volume at the OS.
Any thoughts, opinions, suggestions?
tia, al
--
Al Lilianstrom
CD/CSS/CSI
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/370 - Release Date: 6/20/2006
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/370 - Release Date: 6/20/2006
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
