|
|
Our Hot Pick: Rising Antivirus 2006 - Certified by TUV & Checkmark! Get 10% discount by entering this coupon code: ONDISCOUNT10
I'm planning a new SBS setup at my new company. Previously I had a
Dell PowerEdge 1800 which came with a 12gig C partion, and then I had
the remaning of the 300 gigs on the D partition. This was awful,
because after you installed a few applications and the operating
system and updates, you were left with about 1 gig of space. I also
had to move the exchange files, and the user home directories, to the
D partition.
I know it's not as good of an idea to run just one partition and dump
everything on there, but if I did that, would I really have to worry
about corrupting the system files?
I am planning on running a Raid 5 setup with four 146gig 15k SAS
drives, and just didn't want to have to worry about having two
partitions.
Granted I could do a separate Raid 1 setup for the OS (to give me more
space), and then run a Raid 5 setup for the file storage, but I still
have to deal with two drives/partitions.
Also, I have heard rumors about SBS not liking the quadcore
processors, and I just want to get a final ruling on that before I
spend the money on a quadcore compared to a dualcore.
Thanks...
|
|
Garbis wrote:
[Quoted Text] > I'm planning a new SBS setup at my new company. Previously I had a
> Dell PowerEdge 1800 which came with a 12gig C partion, and then I had
> the remaning of the 300 gigs on the D partition. This was awful,
> because after you installed a few applications and the operating
> system and updates, you were left with about 1 gig of space. I also
> had to move the exchange files, and the user home directories, to the
> D partition.
>
> I know it's not as good of an idea to run just one partition and dump
> everything on there, but if I did that, would I really have to worry
> about corrupting the system files?
>
> I am planning on running a Raid 5 setup with four 146gig 15k SAS
> drives, and just didn't want to have to worry about having two
> partitions.
>
> Granted I could do a separate Raid 1 setup for the OS (to give me more
> space), and then run a Raid 5 setup for the file storage, but I still
> have to deal with two drives/partitions.
>
> Also, I have heard rumors about SBS not liking the quadcore
> processors, and I just want to get a final ruling on that before I
> spend the money on a quadcore compared to a dualcore.
>
> Thanks...
>
I recall seeing that sbs2003 only sees 2 cpu's (specs and licensing).
This is on purpose. 2 physical sockets or processors.
Exchange has a way where you can move the logs and datastore to any
place you prefer. I'd really suggest you stick to your original plan.
Windows servers WILL get corrupt after 2 years or so. It's easier to
keep your business data on a different partition so you don't have to
kill everything. This way you only format what's bad - the OS.
It's up to you really.
Why don't you see the specs yourself?
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/sbs/techinfo/default.mspx
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;909382
|
|
I'd strongly suggest 2 or more partitions. Just make sure you create the C:
system partition large enough to not be an issue. Some here are saying 30
GB, I personally like 40 GB. And I move as much stuff off it as I can.
Quad core? No reason why not. MS doesn't count cores for licensing. It
counts sockets. SBS is licensed for 2 sockets maximum.
--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
"Garbis" <garbis[ at ]gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183060639.511503.106420[ at ]n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
[Quoted Text] > I'm planning a new SBS setup at my new company. Previously I had a
> Dell PowerEdge 1800 which came with a 12gig C partion, and then I had
> the remaning of the 300 gigs on the D partition. This was awful,
> because after you installed a few applications and the operating
> system and updates, you were left with about 1 gig of space. I also
> had to move the exchange files, and the user home directories, to the
> D partition.
>
> I know it's not as good of an idea to run just one partition and dump
> everything on there, but if I did that, would I really have to worry
> about corrupting the system files?
>
> I am planning on running a Raid 5 setup with four 146gig 15k SAS
> drives, and just didn't want to have to worry about having two
> partitions.
>
> Granted I could do a separate Raid 1 setup for the OS (to give me more
> space), and then run a Raid 5 setup for the file storage, but I still
> have to deal with two drives/partitions.
>
> Also, I have heard rumors about SBS not liking the quadcore
> processors, and I just want to get a final ruling on that before I
> spend the money on a quadcore compared to a dualcore.
>
> Thanks...
>
|
|
WHAT A LOAD OF RUBBISH!!!
[Quoted Text] > Windows servers WILL get corrupt after 2 years or so.
DRIVEL!!!
You want no less than three partitions:
1) OS+Program Files (root, boot, and shoot). This is the OS and where SBS
programs are installed, you might want to put third party apps elsewhere.
The main reason for including the SBS apps here is the _occassional_ glitch
we've had with an SP/hotfix where SBS Dev did not consider that such may
have been put elsewhere. The main reasons for separating the OS partition
have almost nothing to do with 'would I really have to worry about
corrupting the system files?' but moreso backup and recovery times of the
functional system and an easy way to ensure some dumb user's fnigre porbelm
making a copy of 700GB of data by accident doesn't bring the server down due
to lack of space on the OS partition.
To account for the OS, Program Files, \SYSVOL, recent $NTUninstall,
%windir%\softwareupdates, %temp%, etc, etc, etc... most people are happy
with about 30GB currently. LOOK at your current install, and if you've been
tidying it severely give consideration to what has been pruned, also
considering if there's non-SBS carp in there which could reasonably have
been moved elsewhere, then add some for reasonable growth, then double it to
account for performance of NTFS (NTFS performance drops as free space falls
below ~40%). It wasn't _that_ long ago that I would have said 20GB, it would
not be unreasonable today to assign 40GB.
2) DATA. group and individual shares. Basically, anything which benefits
from having Shadow Copies enabled.
3) DATA2. Exchange/SQL/MSDE databases, may include your LOB app data but
maybe not. Basically, anything which benefits little from SC's (which are
disabled on this partition).
Most of the reasons for additional partitions are more to do with additional
physical drives, or spindles. I currently see little if any benefit and
several drawbacks to what I consider 'overpartitioning'.
On the core issue: I believe you will receive a warning during installation
regarding the OS and too many CPU's, ignore it. Yes, SBS counts physical CPU
units. Also, if memory serves Exchange (or is it SQL?) installation also
raises a question, I _think_ you have to do something about this, maybe
disable the cores during install then post-install patch and re-enable the
cores. This _may_ only apply to preR2, sorry, not my forte, for my target
client base a dual CPU dual core would be overkill. SBS is NOT CPU intense
(but it's growing :-).
"ms support newsgroup" <user[ at ]example.net> wrote in message
news:en0DvKcuHHA.3376[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Garbis wrote:
>> I'm planning a new SBS setup at my new company. Previously I had a
>> Dell PowerEdge 1800 which came with a 12gig C partion, and then I had
>> the remaning of the 300 gigs on the D partition. This was awful,
>> because after you installed a few applications and the operating
>> system and updates, you were left with about 1 gig of space. I also
>> had to move the exchange files, and the user home directories, to the
>> D partition.
>>
>> I know it's not as good of an idea to run just one partition and dump
>> everything on there, but if I did that, would I really have to worry
>> about corrupting the system files?
>>
>> I am planning on running a Raid 5 setup with four 146gig 15k SAS
>> drives, and just didn't want to have to worry about having two
>> partitions.
>>
>> Granted I could do a separate Raid 1 setup for the OS (to give me more
>> space), and then run a Raid 5 setup for the file storage, but I still
>> have to deal with two drives/partitions.
>>
>> Also, I have heard rumors about SBS not liking the quadcore
>> processors, and I just want to get a final ruling on that before I
>> spend the money on a quadcore compared to a dualcore.
>>
>> Thanks...
>>
> I recall seeing that sbs2003 only sees 2 cpu's (specs and licensing).
> This is on purpose. 2 physical sockets or processors.
>
> Exchange has a way where you can move the logs and datastore to any
> place you prefer. I'd really suggest you stick to your original plan.
> Windows servers WILL get corrupt after 2 years or so. It's easier to
> keep your business data on a different partition so you don't have to
> kill everything. This way you only format what's bad - the OS.
>
> It's up to you really.
>
> Why don't you see the specs yourself?
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/sbs/techinfo/default.mspx
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;909382
|
|
In article <en0DvKcuHHA.3376[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, user[ at ]example.net
says...
[Quoted Text] > Garbis wrote: > > I'm planning a new SBS setup at my new company. Previously I had a > > Dell PowerEdge 1800 which came with a 12gig C partion, and then I had > > the remaning of the 300 gigs on the D partition. This was awful, > > because after you installed a few applications and the operating > > system and updates, you were left with about 1 gig of space. I also > > had to move the exchange files, and the user home directories, to the > > D partition. > > > > I know it's not as good of an idea to run just one partition and dump > > everything on there, but if I did that, would I really have to worry > > about corrupting the system files? > > > > I am planning on running a Raid 5 setup with four 146gig 15k SAS > > drives, and just didn't want to have to worry about having two > > partitions. > > > > Granted I could do a separate Raid 1 setup for the OS (to give me more > > space), and then run a Raid 5 setup for the file storage, but I still > > have to deal with two drives/partitions. > > > > Also, I have heard rumors about SBS not liking the quadcore > > processors, and I just want to get a final ruling on that before I > > spend the money on a quadcore compared to a dualcore. > > > > Thanks... > > > I recall seeing that sbs2003 only sees 2 cpu's (specs and licensing). > This is on purpose. 2 physical sockets or processors. > > Exchange has a way where you can move the logs and datastore to any > place you prefer. I'd really suggest you stick to your original plan. > Windows servers WILL get corrupt after 2 years or so. It's easier to > keep your business data on a different partition so you don't have to > kill everything. This way you only format what's bad - the OS. > > It's up to you really. > > Why don't you see the specs yourself? > > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/sbs/techinfo/default.mspx> > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;909382
You need to take the MS SUPPORT NEWSGROUP out of your name since you
don't have much experience to be posting what you purport as factual
information.
I have more than 30 servers running Windows OS, back to NT4 on one still
in production, that have more than 4 years on them without any
"Corruption". My own personal web server for playing around is running
on a Windows 2000 Server Std with SQL 2000 on it and it runs on a Dual
Celeron 500Mhz board with Dual 160GB Drives in a RAID-1, and it's been
online and running 24/7 for so long I can't remember when the last time
had a problem with it.
To answer the OP, we have 6 clients, small shops, with single partition
installations - a based 300GB RAID-1 or a base 250GB RAID-1 (hardware
RAID) and they have NO PROBLEMS AT ALL. As a matter of fact, it's so
very simple because they don't have to worry about O/S partition space
or Data partition space....
Also - licensing is based on Socket/Physical CPU, so the Quad Core,
which are expensive as we've got a lot of them, would be fine, but you
would, for SBS, be better off purchasing a Dedicated member server with
Dual Core to offload the work you think you're trying to handle with a
single server on Quad Core.
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free[ at ]rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
|
|
"Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:
[Quoted Text]
But it seems ISA server does, I run a poweredge 2900 with dual quad core
processors, and I had to choose between running ISA 2004 or removing one
of the processors.
If there's a work around for this one I'd love to know what it is
|
|
On Jun 28, 3:57 pm, Garbis <gar...[ at ]gmail.com> wrote:
[Quoted Text] > I'm planning a new SBS setup at my new company. Previously I had a
> Dell PowerEdge 1800 which came with a 12gig C partion, and then I had
> the remaning of the 300 gigs on the D partition. This was awful,
> because after you installed a few applications and the operating
> system and updates, you were left with about 1 gig of space. I also
> had to move the exchange files, and the user home directories, to the
> D partition.
>
> I know it's not as good of an idea to run just one partition and dump
> everything on there, but if I did that, would I really have to worry
> about corrupting the system files?
>
> I am planning on running a Raid 5 setup with four 146gig 15k SAS
> drives, and just didn't want to have to worry about having two
> partitions.
>
> Granted I could do a separate Raid 1 setup for the OS (to give me more
> space), and then run a Raid 5 setup for the file storage, but I still
> have to deal with two drives/partitions.
>
> Also, I have heard rumors about SBS not liking the quadcore
> processors, and I just want to get a final ruling on that before I
> spend the money on a quadcore compared to a dualcore.
>
> Thanks...
I have a new box with dual quads and it loaded with out problem and
sees all 8 processors. Sick machine but I plan to use it next year in
64bit mode with Cougar (if all goes with with software assurance and
can do a swing migration).
Rick
|
|
The ISACTRL and WSPSRV Services Do Not Start When You Install ISA Server
2004 Standard Edition on a Multiprocessor Computer (884569)
Brief Description
A bug in the ISA Server Control Service causes a hyper-threaded processor to
be counted as two (2) physical processors, such that a 4-processor server is
seen as having 8 processors in violation of the ISA Server 2004 Standard
Edition end-user license agreement.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=C1970983-3164-4A1F-86B5-B0BBD66107E0&displaylang=en
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/884569
I _think_ it works for your circumstances also.
"Neil the server dude" <Neiltheserverdude[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
in message news:93323787-D16A-4161-A96F-E8015BC57E2B[ at ]microsoft.com...
[Quoted Text] > > > "Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote: > >> Quad core? No reason why not. MS doesn't count cores for licensing. It >> counts sockets. SBS is licensed for 2 sockets maximum. >> >> -- >> Charlie. >> http://msmvps.com/xperts64>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel> > > But it seems ISA server does, I run a poweredge 2900 with dual quad core > processors, and I had to choose between running ISA 2004 or removing > one > of the processors. > > If there's a work around for this one I'd love to know what it is
|
|
|
|
|