Windows Server 2003 RAID configuration

[pcwilson]

Hi Guys

I'm going to be building a couple of W2K3 servers shortly and I'm looking for some advice on the disk configuration.

Server A will be a DC, doing DNS, DHCP, and file and print for about 50 users. Hardware will be HP Proliant DL380, dual core Xeon, 4GB RAM. I'm thinking 2 x 72GB SATA drives configured as RAID0 (mirrored) to hold boot and system volumes + 3 x 146GB SATA drives configured as RAID5 to hold data.

Server B will be a member server running Exchange 2003 for the same 50 users. Same spec as Server A and I'm thinking same disk configuration.

I'd appreciate any comments on my planned disk configuration (or anything else) from anyone who's been down this road already.

Cheers
Phil

[ATG]

Depends what your users are doing, but that sounds like a pretty paltry amount of space for a file server for 50 people

[Gateway Networks]

pcwilson said:

2 x 72GB SATA drives configured as RAID0 (mirrored) to hold boot and system volumes + 3 x 146GB SATA drives configured as RAID5 to hold data.

raid 0 is striped with no redundancy.. are you sure you dont mean raid 1 ?

[pcwilson]

Gateway Networks said:

pcwilson said:

2 x 72GB SATA drives configured as RAID0 (mirrored) to hold boot and system volumes + 3 x 146GB SATA drives configured as RAID5 to hold data.

raid 0 is striped with no redundancy.. are you sure you dont mean raid 1 ?

You're right. Should have said RAID1. Cheers.

[pcwilson]

ATG said:

Depends what your users are doing, but that sounds like a pretty paltry amount of space for a file server for 50 people

I've got by with 32GB for the last 5 years. These aren't the most demanding users in terms of storage requirements.

[pdV6]

pcwilson said:

ATG said:

Depends what your users are doing, but that sounds like a pretty paltry amount of space for a file server for 50 people

I've got by with 32GB for the last 5 years. These aren't the most demanding users in terms of storage requirements.

Is that because they're storing everything locally with no redundancy and/or backup?

[pcwilson]

pdV6 said:

pcwilson said:

ATG said:

Depends what your users are doing, but that sounds like a pretty paltry amount of space for a file server for 50 people

I've got by with 32GB for the last 5 years. These aren't the most demanding users in terms of storage requirements.

Is that because they're storing everything locally with no redundancy and/or backup?

Nope. I've drummed it in to them over the years not to store anything locally. Everyone has an H: drive which maps to a user data share on the current server. Everyone's My Documents points to the H: drive also. This share gets backed up to tape every night. They just don't generate that many word, excel, powerpoint docs.

[ATG]

pcwilson said:

ATG said:

Depends what your users are doing, but that sounds like a pretty paltry amount of space for a file server for 50 people

I've got by with 32GB for the last 5 years. These aren't the most demanding users in terms of storage requirements.

Oh well, fair enough
FWIW we use a couple of types of Proliant DL servers as database servers (not by choice, it is what we were given) and they all seem to be a perfectly reliable bits of kit. Maybe a bit expensive, but perhaps by not enough to warrant the effort of shopping around very long.

[mcarrick69]

Have you planned to use Shadow copies?
I store these on a seperate disk.

The plan was to back up shadow copies to a tape thus saving space (then we could restore these instead of the physical file) but never managed so we back up all the physical files instead.

Edited by mcarrick69 on Thursday 31st May 13:40

[pcwilson]

mcarrick69 said:

Have you planned to use Shadow copies?
I store these on a seperate disk.

The plan was to back up shadow copies to a tape thus saving space (then we could restore these instead of the physical file) but never managed so we back up all the physical files instead.

Edited by mcarrick69 on Thursday 31st May 13:40

Haven't given shadow copies much thought to be honest. I'll need to do some Googling.

[plasticpig]

The only comment I would make is to get a couple of spare disks for the Raid arrays. We have fallen foul of this in the past where we ordered a replacement disk after one went down. Same model and spec as the existing disks except it had revision C firmware instead of revision B. We couldnt rebuild the array because the new disk was about 3Okb smaller in capacity.

[malman]

plasticpig said:

The only comment I would make is to get a couple of spare disks for the Raid arrays. We have fallen foul of this in the past where we ordered a replacement disk after one went down. Same model and spec as the existing disks except it had revision C firmware instead of revision B. We couldnt rebuild the array because the new disk was about 3Okb smaller in capacity.

when building the raid leave some space at the end of the disk (few meg should do) for just such occasions

[theboss]

pcwilson said:

Hi Guys

I'm going to be building a couple of W2K3 servers shortly and I'm looking for some advice on the disk configuration.

Server A will be a DC, doing DNS, DHCP, and file and print for about 50 users. Hardware will be HP Proliant DL380, dual core Xeon, 4GB RAM. I'm thinking 2 x 72GB SATA drives configured as RAID0 (mirrored) to hold boot and system volumes + 3 x 146GB SATA drives configured as RAID5 to hold data.

Server B will be a member server running Exchange 2003 for the same 50 users. Same spec as Server A and I'm thinking same disk configuration.

I'd appreciate any comments on my planned disk configuration (or anything else) from anyone who's been down this road already.

Cheers
Phil

Sounds fine to me. You *could* save a disk with the Exchange box (or possible both) by creating a second RAID1 mirror rather than a RAID5 array, with the added benefit that this would allow server duplication/recovery by splitting the mirrors.

Also check the controller you're getting with the DL380, ideally go for a P400 with some BBWC, the povery-spec controllers are a bit naff and Exchange will make good use of the write cache.

[plasticpig]

malman said:

plasticpig said:

The only comment I would make is to get a couple of spare disks for the Raid arrays. We have fallen foul of this in the past where we ordered a replacement disk after one went down. Same model and spec as the existing disks except it had revision C firmware instead of revision B. We couldnt rebuild the array because the new disk was about 3Okb smaller in capacity.

when building the raid leave some space at the end of the disk (few meg should do) for just such occasions

We always supply servers with 5 HD's for Raid 5. It was a server we were supporting which we did not supply. You can always use a bigger disk of course (which is what we did).