RE: [ActiveDir] Going OT again ... Separating Database and logs on seperate disks
Okay - I just HAVE to ask... What does it Dew for you?? (ducks!) Steve Egan (Temp) Network/Systems Engineer Purcell Systems "One Unix to rule them all, One Resolver to find them, One IP to bring them all, And in the Zone to Bind them." -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 8:26 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Going OT again ... Separating Database and logs on seperate disks Yeah and I'm bummed that I can't find any Pitch Black Mountain Dew this Halloween season (okay that's realllyy off topic) joe wrote: > I could only correlate sender... > > Susan is in California, all sorts of interesting things to experiment > with out there. > > > -- > O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - > http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm > 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
Re: [ActiveDir] Going OT again ... Separating Database and logs on seperate disks
Yeah and I'm bummed that I can't find any Pitch Black Mountain Dew this Halloween season (okay that's realllyy off topic) joe wrote: I could only correlate sender... Susan is in California, all sorts of interesting things to experiment with out there. -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 9:04 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Going OT again ... Separating Database and logs on seperate disks Can anyone see a correlation between Susan's original post and the final KB to which she referred? I must be smoking the wrong type of sh** :-^ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Sent: 17 October 2006 13:35 To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Seperating Database and logs on seperate disks :) Fun issue! I never would have hit it. -- 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 2:29 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Seperating Database and logs on seperate disks 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://w
RE: [ActiveDir] Going OT again ... Separating Database and logs on seperate disks
I could only correlate sender... Susan is in California, all sorts of interesting things to experiment with out there. -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 9:04 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Going OT again ... Separating Database and logs on seperate disks Can anyone see a correlation between Susan's original post and the final KB to which she referred? I must be smoking the wrong type of sh** :-^ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Sent: 17 October 2006 13:35 To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Seperating Database and logs on seperate disks :) Fun issue! I never would have hit it. -- 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 2:29 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Seperating Database and logs on seperate disks 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
RE: [ActiveDir] Going OT again ... Separating Database and logs on seperate disks
Can anyone see a correlation between Susan's original post and the final KB to which she referred? I must be smoking the wrong type of sh** :-^ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Sent: 17 October 2006 13:35 To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Seperating Database and logs on seperate disks :) Fun issue! I never would have hit it. -- 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 2:29 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Seperating Database and logs on seperate disks 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 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 PLEASE READ: The information contained in this email is confidential and intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you are not an intended recipient of this email please notify the sen
