Wow... That is a psychedelic post... :)
-- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 12:45 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Seperating Database and logs on seperate disks In the back recesses of my brain I seem to remember a KB that indicated issues when one was there and the other was there and then it got moved over there but not consistent with there that not so good things happened. (but I just ran out of Mountain Dew Energy drink so I could be delusional right now) joe wrote: > I am surprised there aren't more responses to this. > > My personal opinion is that a vast majority of installations don't need to > separate off the logs for perf. In fact, I have often recommended running > everything on a single RAID 0+1/10/5 (partition logically if you want to say > separate off the OS and the AD stuff) to get better perf than splitting logs > and OS off onto their own disks. Especially in larger orgs for Exchange GCs > that tried to follow the deployment docs and do mirror, mirror, mirror or > mirror, mirror, 0+1 but didn't have enough disks to get a good 0+1. > > In every case that I have had to review DCs with questionable disk subsystem > perf, the issues are always around the DIT while the disks for the OS and > the Logs are snoozing with IOPS sitting there not being used that could have > saved the DIT from getting sucked into the mud. Rebuilding the disk > subsystem with all disks in one of the above configurations has alleviated > the issues in every case. Whether RAID 5 or 0+1/10 is faster you will want > to test with your own disk subystems (say with IOMETER), it seems to vary. I > have seen RAID-5 faster and I have seen on different machines 0+1/10 faster. > > > A case I am aware of where the logs definitely were good off on their own > and would have seriously impacted perf if they weren't was Eric's DIT > experiment where he built a 2TB DIT but he was adding objects at a very high > rate of speed constantly for quite a while so the logs were being beaten > pretty well. > > joe > > > -- > O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - > http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of AD > Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 11:29 AM > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > Subject: [ActiveDir] Seperating Database and logs on seperate disks > > Is there any other reason other then performance to have the Active > Directory log files and database on separate disks? > > Opinions are welcome. > > Thanks > > Yves > 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 > > 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 > > -- Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days? http://www.threatcode.com If you are a SBSer and you don't subscribe to the SBS Blog... man ... I will hunt you down... http://blogs.technet.com/sbs 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 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
