|
Actually,
I would use a RAID 1 to hold a system / boot partition and a second partition to house a volume that holds mount points used to establish shares for File servers and a print spooler. I run across too many File servers that have shares littered across multiple drives because people needed to expand volumes, so they just add a new LUN from a SAN, or an LAS array, etc. This design is mainly for my own sanity.
Todd
From: joe
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Number of users isn't critical, it is how the system is used. While it would be odd for a 500 user system to take a beating, I don't think we could rule it out until you understand how the system is used. Any designs that go off of user count and nothing else is going to be flawed. Without the details, the recommend from me is to go as big as you can. If that doesn't end up being big enough, at least you tried and now you don't have as much more to buy now. :)
> So why not a RAID 1 partition that holds all the OS, binaries, log files, file and print facilities etc?
For a low level use, I was right there with you until you said file and print my friend. ;)
-- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick Interesting how much traffic this subject has garnered.
But I have to ask, why? I mean, we haven't even heard the performance concepts and you're ready to put this on extra hardware no questions. What if he only had about 500 users? Would that still hold? What if it were a largely distributed environment and they had a network such that they needed many smaller vs. fewer larger DC's? Maybe a branch office environment?
I hate software raid (joe's sure to put that definition in a wiki somewhere) because of the false sense of hope it gives the implementer. But I do understand the idea of the least amount of hardware for the task at hand and not a penny more hardware than is needed. Not that I'm even coming close to endorsing software level RAID - far from it.
So why not a RAID 1 partition that holds all the OS, binaries, log files, file and print facilities etc?
It's a distributed app and could very easily work to the specs needed
in a largely distributed architecture. Were RODC available, it might be chosen
for some of the ones I have in mind. I'm sure you feel I'm baiting you and picking on you Gil but I am curious what some of the thinking in the crowd is <G>
On 6/22/06, Gil Kirkpatrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: OS, DIT, logs on separate spindles.
|
- RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration Myrick, Todd \(NIH/CC/DCRI\) [E]
- RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration Myrick, Todd \(NIH/CC/DCRI\) [E]
- RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration Myrick, Todd \(NIH/CC/DCRI\) [E]
