AH HA
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;909265
residual energy drink kicked in
Locate the operating system, the database, and the log files according
to scenarios 1, 2 or 5. Drive letter assignments on the domain
controllers do not have to match those in the table.
joe wrote:
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
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
