My system arrived from the manufactuer yesterday and they lumped all
the hard disks into one C: drive. I am going to have to repartion it
and reinstall the OS myself. Their tech support suggested partioning
it to C: = 100 GB for the OS and the remainder for D:

I would rather have at least 3 partitions; OS, Software Applications,
Data, or more which is why I am turning to the experienced users out
there for input.

The system consists of 4 500GB hard disks with a Raid 5 controller.

What are your thoughts on how to divide up the space?

Re: Hard Disk Partition Recommendations by Brian

Brian
Wed Mar 26 05:28:30 PDT 2008

"Skygazer61" <Skygazer61@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:de08ecc5-60ca-491d-8f2c-776fedd13880@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> My system arrived from the manufactuer yesterday and they lumped all
> the hard disks into one C: drive. I am going to have to repartion it
> and reinstall the OS myself. Their tech support suggested partioning
> it to C: = 100 GB for the OS and the remainder for D:
>
> I would rather have at least 3 partitions; OS, Software Applications,
> Data, or more which is why I am turning to the experienced users out
> there for input.
>
> The system consists of 4 500GB hard disks with a Raid 5 controller.
>
> What are your thoughts on how to divide up the space?

Personally I wouldn't partition it unless I had a good reason to - for
example if it were a test system and I knew I'd want to wipe and reinstall
the OS every now and then. What real advantage does it give you to have data
and applications in their own separate partitions? If there is an advantage
(whatever that might be) then go for it, but don't do it just because. In my
own experience if you partition then unless you are generous with all your
partition sizes, eventually one becomes too small.

If you are going to partition then some things to consider:
- How much data do you have, and at what rate do you expect it to grow?
- How many users is the system likely to support, and how much data do you
expect each to keep in their personal and public folders?

Others may have different thoughts over the entire partioning issue.
--
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian




Re: Hard Disk Partition Recommendations by Jim

Jim
Wed Mar 26 06:31:58 PDT 2008

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:28:30 -0000, "Brian Cryer"
<brianc@127.0.0.1.activesol.co.uk> wrote:

>"Skygazer61" <Skygazer61@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:de08ecc5-60ca-491d-8f2c-776fedd13880@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> My system arrived from the manufactuer yesterday and they lumped all
>> the hard disks into one C: drive. I am going to have to repartion it
>> and reinstall the OS myself. Their tech support suggested partioning
>> it to C: = 100 GB for the OS and the remainder for D:
>>
>> I would rather have at least 3 partitions; OS, Software Applications,
>> Data, or more which is why I am turning to the experienced users out
>> there for input.
>>
>> The system consists of 4 500GB hard disks with a Raid 5 controller.
>>
>> What are your thoughts on how to divide up the space?
>
>Personally I wouldn't partition it unless I had a good reason to - for
>example if it were a test system and I knew I'd want to wipe and reinstall
>the OS every now and then. What real advantage does it give you to have data
>and applications in their own separate partitions? If there is an advantage
>(whatever that might be) then go for it, but don't do it just because. In my
>own experience if you partition then unless you are generous with all your
>partition sizes, eventually one becomes too small.
>
>If you are going to partition then some things to consider:
>- How much data do you have, and at what rate do you expect it to grow?
>- How many users is the system likely to support, and how much data do you
>expect each to keep in their personal and public folders?
>
>Others may have different thoughts over the entire partioning issue.
I have entirely different ideas. When I want to scan disk fro problems
I do not want to scan a 500 gig partition unless I am forced to. If
you set the C: partition for 60 gigs that will scan off line fast
enough. The other partitions can be scanned on line but you may have
to stop a few services. On th elast server I had 500 gigs to play
with. I did 60 gigs for C: 120 for D: where I put the Exchange
databases, and the rest for E where user files and WSUS went.

I have been bit painfully by 8-12 gig partitons for C: so I totally
agree with Brian on too small will just come back to haunt you.

I hope you are running hardware raid. Two guys in 24 hours have posted
with painful software raid problems. Software raid is slower than
hardware raid, so I read.
See what SBS support is working on
http://blogs.technet.com/sbs/default.aspx
Check your SBS with the SBS Best Practices Analyzer
http://blogs.technet.com/sbs/archive/tags/BPA/default.aspx

Re: Hard Disk Partition Recommendations by Brian

Brian
Wed Mar 26 07:41:54 PDT 2008


"Jim Behning SBS MVP" <jimbehning@doesthisblockpork.mindspring.com> wrote in
message news:qqjku3lutetdntos75g0k06qc86tlfsmj8@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:28:30 -0000, "Brian Cryer"
> <brianc@127.0.0.1.activesol.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>"Skygazer61" <Skygazer61@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:de08ecc5-60ca-491d-8f2c-776fedd13880@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>> My system arrived from the manufactuer yesterday and they lumped all
>>> the hard disks into one C: drive. I am going to have to repartion it
>>> and reinstall the OS myself. Their tech support suggested partioning
>>> it to C: = 100 GB for the OS and the remainder for D:
>>>
>>> I would rather have at least 3 partitions; OS, Software Applications,
>>> Data, or more which is why I am turning to the experienced users out
>>> there for input.
>>>
>>> The system consists of 4 500GB hard disks with a Raid 5 controller.
>>>
>>> What are your thoughts on how to divide up the space?
>>
>>Personally I wouldn't partition it unless I had a good reason to - for
>>example if it were a test system and I knew I'd want to wipe and reinstall
>>the OS every now and then. What real advantage does it give you to have
>>data
>>and applications in their own separate partitions? If there is an
>>advantage
>>(whatever that might be) then go for it, but don't do it just because. In
>>my
>>own experience if you partition then unless you are generous with all your
>>partition sizes, eventually one becomes too small.
>>
>>If you are going to partition then some things to consider:
>>- How much data do you have, and at what rate do you expect it to grow?
>>- How many users is the system likely to support, and how much data do you
>>expect each to keep in their personal and public folders?
>>
>>Others may have different thoughts over the entire partioning issue.
> I have entirely different ideas. When I want to scan disk fro problems
> I do not want to scan a 500 gig partition unless I am forced to. If
> you set the C: partition for 60 gigs that will scan off line fast
> enough. The other partitions can be scanned on line but you may have
> to stop a few services.

Thats sound.

I tend to put data on physically different disks rather than partioning, but
if I had a single large RAID to play with (no such luck yet) then you've
given me good food for thought.
--
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian





Re: Hard Disk Partition Recommendations by Al

Al
Wed Mar 26 07:41:12 PDT 2008

Another reason for partitions is shadow copy control is per-partition. You
don't want shadow copy on the OS or database (exchange, sql, wsus)
partitions but you do on the user data so generally you want to separate
things that way.

--
Allan Williams



"Jim Behning SBS MVP" <jimbehning@doesthisblockpork.mindspring.com> wrote in
message news:qqjku3lutetdntos75g0k06qc86tlfsmj8@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:28:30 -0000, "Brian Cryer"
> <brianc@127.0.0.1.activesol.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>"Skygazer61" <Skygazer61@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:de08ecc5-60ca-491d-8f2c-776fedd13880@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>> My system arrived from the manufactuer yesterday and they lumped all
>>> the hard disks into one C: drive. I am going to have to repartion it
>>> and reinstall the OS myself. Their tech support suggested partioning
>>> it to C: = 100 GB for the OS and the remainder for D:
>>>
>>> I would rather have at least 3 partitions; OS, Software Applications,
>>> Data, or more which is why I am turning to the experienced users out
>>> there for input.
>>>
>>> The system consists of 4 500GB hard disks with a Raid 5 controller.
>>>
>>> What are your thoughts on how to divide up the space?
>>
>>Personally I wouldn't partition it unless I had a good reason to - for
>>example if it were a test system and I knew I'd want to wipe and reinstall
>>the OS every now and then. What real advantage does it give you to have
>>data
>>and applications in their own separate partitions? If there is an
>>advantage
>>(whatever that might be) then go for it, but don't do it just because. In
>>my
>>own experience if you partition then unless you are generous with all your
>>partition sizes, eventually one becomes too small.
>>
>>If you are going to partition then some things to consider:
>>- How much data do you have, and at what rate do you expect it to grow?
>>- How many users is the system likely to support, and how much data do you
>>expect each to keep in their personal and public folders?
>>
>>Others may have different thoughts over the entire partioning issue.
> I have entirely different ideas. When I want to scan disk fro problems
> I do not want to scan a 500 gig partition unless I am forced to. If
> you set the C: partition for 60 gigs that will scan off line fast
> enough. The other partitions can be scanned on line but you may have
> to stop a few services. On th elast server I had 500 gigs to play
> with. I did 60 gigs for C: 120 for D: where I put the Exchange
> databases, and the rest for E where user files and WSUS went.
>
> I have been bit painfully by 8-12 gig partitons for C: so I totally
> agree with Brian on too small will just come back to haunt you.
>
> I hope you are running hardware raid. Two guys in 24 hours have posted
> with painful software raid problems. Software raid is slower than
> hardware raid, so I read.
> See what SBS support is working on
> http://blogs.technet.com/sbs/default.aspx
> Check your SBS with the SBS Best Practices Analyzer
> http://blogs.technet.com/sbs/archive/tags/BPA/default.aspx



Re: Hard Disk Partition Recommendations by Russ

Russ
Wed Mar 26 11:38:18 PDT 2008

BINGO
IMO Al Wins the prize.

my 2 cents I like RAID 1 for OS and RAID 1 or 5 for other.
It's just easier to restore things.

Why? It's usually the OS or the DATA that need restored.
Not both at the same time..

If the OS is Toast, I recover that part.
If the Data is Toast I just recover that part.

In ZERO partitions, if the OS is toast, your Data is Off from Last Backup.
In my Configuration, DATA is Fine and not even touched.

Russ

--

SBITS.Biz
Microsoft Gold Certified Partner
Microsoft Certified Small Business Specialist.
MCP, MCPS, MCNPS, (MCP-SBS)
North America Remote SBS2003 Support - http://www.SBITS.Biz
Information on Small Business Server 2008 - http://www.sbs2008.com
Information on Essentials Business Server - http://www.ebs2008.com



-

"Al Williams" <donotreplydirect@usenewsgroup.com> wrote in message
news:ODyXx90jIHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Another reason for partitions is shadow copy control is per-partition.
> You don't want shadow copy on the OS or database (exchange, sql, wsus)
> partitions but you do on the user data so generally you want to separate
> things that way.
>
> --
> Allan Williams
>
>
>
> "Jim Behning SBS MVP" <jimbehning@doesthisblockpork.mindspring.com> wrote
> in message news:qqjku3lutetdntos75g0k06qc86tlfsmj8@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:28:30 -0000, "Brian Cryer"
>> <brianc@127.0.0.1.activesol.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>"Skygazer61" <Skygazer61@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:de08ecc5-60ca-491d-8f2c-776fedd13880@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>> My system arrived from the manufactuer yesterday and they lumped all
>>>> the hard disks into one C: drive. I am going to have to repartion it
>>>> and reinstall the OS myself. Their tech support suggested partioning
>>>> it to C: = 100 GB for the OS and the remainder for D:
>>>>
>>>> I would rather have at least 3 partitions; OS, Software Applications,
>>>> Data, or more which is why I am turning to the experienced users out
>>>> there for input.
>>>>
>>>> The system consists of 4 500GB hard disks with a Raid 5 controller.
>>>>
>>>> What are your thoughts on how to divide up the space?
>>>
>>>Personally I wouldn't partition it unless I had a good reason to - for
>>>example if it were a test system and I knew I'd want to wipe and
>>>reinstall
>>>the OS every now and then. What real advantage does it give you to have
>>>data
>>>and applications in their own separate partitions? If there is an
>>>advantage
>>>(whatever that might be) then go for it, but don't do it just because. In
>>>my
>>>own experience if you partition then unless you are generous with all
>>>your
>>>partition sizes, eventually one becomes too small.
>>>
>>>If you are going to partition then some things to consider:
>>>- How much data do you have, and at what rate do you expect it to grow?
>>>- How many users is the system likely to support, and how much data do
>>>you
>>>expect each to keep in their personal and public folders?
>>>
>>>Others may have different thoughts over the entire partioning issue.
>> I have entirely different ideas. When I want to scan disk fro problems
>> I do not want to scan a 500 gig partition unless I am forced to. If
>> you set the C: partition for 60 gigs that will scan off line fast
>> enough. The other partitions can be scanned on line but you may have
>> to stop a few services. On th elast server I had 500 gigs to play
>> with. I did 60 gigs for C: 120 for D: where I put the Exchange
>> databases, and the rest for E where user files and WSUS went.
>>
>> I have been bit painfully by 8-12 gig partitons for C: so I totally
>> agree with Brian on too small will just come back to haunt you.
>>
>> I hope you are running hardware raid. Two guys in 24 hours have posted
>> with painful software raid problems. Software raid is slower than
>> hardware raid, so I read.
>> See what SBS support is working on
>> http://blogs.technet.com/sbs/default.aspx
>> Check your SBS with the SBS Best Practices Analyzer
>> http://blogs.technet.com/sbs/archive/tags/BPA/default.aspx
>
>



Re: Hard Disk Partition Recommendations by Duncan

Duncan
Wed Mar 26 14:51:39 PDT 2008

In article <de08ecc5-60ca-491d-8f2c-776fedd13880
@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Skygazer61@gmail.com says...
> My system arrived from the manufactuer yesterday and they lumped all
> the hard disks into one C: drive. I am going to have to repartion it
> and reinstall the OS myself. Their tech support suggested partioning
> it to C: = 100 GB for the OS and the remainder for D:
>
> I would rather have at least 3 partitions; OS, Software Applications,
> Data, or more which is why I am turning to the experienced users out
> there for input.
>
> The system consists of 4 500GB hard disks with a Raid 5 controller.
>
> What are your thoughts on how to divide up the space?

I'm not going to get into the partitioning argument - 'cept to say that
I generallly don't like it as it often leads to shortages of space on
one partition, one day.

If I get a Server pre-configured (pre-installed), I re-install *anyway*.
I think that's important. *You* need to know how it's done, how it's
installed, especially the RAID drivers etc.

I would also use that opportunity, since you have 4 disks, to re-RAID to
RAID10 (RAID1+0). You'll lose some space, but will get the best
possible RAID performance option. You'll still have a 1000Gb RAID array
- heaps for most SBS's.

--
Duncan