• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

HD Setup Considerations on NT

M

motherscratcher

Junior Member
I just installed some now drives and wanted to get some suggestions for the best setup.

I'm running NT Server with BackOffice Small Business Server 4.5. We have fewer than 10 users using the system for Internet sharing (via Proxy 2), e-mail (via Exchange Server 5.5), and file sharing. This is for home use for my five roommates and me, so nothing is critical, but I want to understand how to get the best performace out of my setup.

Previously, all of this was running off a single 15 GB drive with 512 MB RAM. I purchased and received today two 40 GB Maxtor D740X drives, of which I've read great things in SR's forums.

I have an MSI BXMaster mobo, which has an ATA 33 controller as well as a Promise Ultra ATA 66 controller, allowing for a total of eight IDE devices. The question before me now is how best to arrange these hard drives with the Acer CD-ROM and Plextor CD-RW drives already in the system.

I want to keep the 15 GB drive as is with two partitions; one for NT, and one for long-term storage. I will use one 40 GB drive for normal day-to-day file sharing and the other 40 GB drive for the pagefile.sys file for NT's required virtual memory, long-term storage, and a backup of the NT boot partition from Norton's Ghost.

To determine the best setup I need to know answers to the following questions:

1. Is it likely that the drive with the pagefile.sys file is accessed more or less frequently than the drive used for day-to-day file sharing? That is, how often would NT access the pagefile.sys file (I have used the default settings for virtual memory and don't plan to change them unless someone can offer a compelling argument otherwise... I don't know enough about it to justify changing it)?

2. If there would be a significant difference between the two drives mentioned in question one, I would assume that it would be best to put the one most accessed on the ATA 66 controller and the other on the ATA 33 controller. Or would it be that putting a drive on that ATA 33 controller would be such a bottleneck that it would be essentially the same as setting the two 40GB drives as a master/slave combination on the same ATA 66 channel? Would it serve me better to have the pagefile.sys file on the day-to-day file sharing drive and put it on the ATA 66 connection?

3. If I do end up putting a hard drive on an ATA 33 connection, either the CD-ROM drive or the CD-RW drive will have to be set up as a slave on that same connection. Will direct CD to CD copying be significantly adversely affected by one of the CD drives being a slave? I assume that would be better than having both CD drives set up as a master and slave on the same ATA 33 channel.

Thanks for the input.
 


<< To determine the best setup I need to know answers to the following questions:

1. Is it likely that the drive with the pagefile.sys file is accessed more or less frequently than the drive used for day-to-day file sharing? That is, how often would NT access the pagefile.sys file (I have used the default settings for virtual memory and don't plan to change them unless someone can offer a compelling argument otherwise... I don't know enough about it to justify changing it)? >>



Running SBS4.5 you mentioned proxy and file sharing, for either of these the pagefile will be used very little with the amount of RAM you mentioned. Now if you used the Exchange and/or SQL portion of SBS4.5 then the pagefile would get used quite a bit, as both of these programs eat RAM, which forces the system to have a fair size pagefile ready to go at all times. The default pagefile won't hurt anything at all, matter of fact with servers it's always better to use a larger than needed size, as crashing from having too little allocated is not worth the headache it could cause.



<< 2. If there would be a significant difference between the two drives mentioned in question one, I would assume that it would be best to put the one most accessed on the ATA 66 controller and the other on the ATA 33 controller. Or would it be that putting a drive on that ATA 33 controller would be such a bottleneck that it would be essentially the same as setting the two 40GB drives as a master/slave combination on the same ATA 66 channel? Would it serve me better to have the pagefile.sys file on the day-to-day file sharing drive and put it on the ATA 66 connection? >>


For your setup, i would setup the pagefile... 200mb on the C: drive, and another 300-400mb on any of the other drives. With enough memory in your server it won't be used much anyway, but if it is then your safe. Besides running a server the pagefile allocation has very little effect on the overall performance, but if you had too small a pagefile then your asking to crash hard. Crashing a SBS4.5 system is not like crashing mom's Win98 computer, SBS has 5 very complex integrated programs that could give you major headaches trying to sort out-(exchange, SQL, proxy2, IIS4, and base OS NT4.0). It's not like tweaking a computer to get 2 extra FPS in quake3, it's just a server that needs to run stable day to day.



<< 3. If I do end up putting a hard drive on an ATA 33 connection, either the CD-ROM drive or the CD-RW drive will have to be set up as a slave on that same connection. Will direct CD to CD copying be significantly adversely affected by one of the CD drives being a slave? I assume that would be better than having both CD drives set up as a master and slave on the same ATA 33 channel. >>



Ouch, putting the CDRW drive in that server is not a good idea, but as you mentioned it's only 5 people using it so that's up to you.
If i were setting that system up...

ATA33
IDE-1 older boot drive, CD as slave.
IDE-2 ugg CDRW
Promise controller ATA66
IDE-1 New drive for file sharing
IDE-2 New drive for ??extra storage, data mirror, ???


Few tips
Use the Exchange Optimization wizard and limit the memory to about 100-150mb max. No need too let Exchange swallow all that memory for only 5 users. Also use the wizard to move the Exchange directories onto one of the faster drives. Takes more of the load off that slower drive.
Disable the SQL services all together if your not going to use it.

Good Luck, SBS4.5 can be alot of fun.
 
Thanks for the info, BreakApart. Four more questions, though:

(1) I'm surpised you recommended that I put the 15GB boot drive on the ATA33 controller. I assumed that the boot disk would be accessed fairly often (to read the OS files and other applications) and that the system's performance would benefit considerably by having this drive on the ATA66 controller. Would the boot disk not be accessed that often such that it wouldn't hurt system performance to put it on the ATA33 controller? (Note that since the system is in the living room someone is often browsing the web and/or playing music from Winamp.)

(2) Why did you suggest having two pagefiles, one on the boot drive and one on one of the 40 GB hard drives? Is this because if one hard drive is in use the system will use the other pagefile on the other drive? If that's the case, then should I put the two pagefiles on the two drives hooked up the the ATA66 controller, which, in your proposed setup would be the two 40 GB hard drives?

(3) Both questions 1 and 2 assume that it's always better for a hard drive to be on an ATA66 controller. Is that a correct assumption in my scenario? Is the ATA66 controller better than the ATA33 controller only if the drive has a lot of short bursts of data transfer? For sustained data transfers, are the hard drives themselves the limiting factor and not the ATA controller? Is it more likely the the OS will call upon the boot drive for short bursts of data transfer of longer, sustained data transfer?

(4) Storagereview.com had an interesting review that discussed a system's performance in relation to a partition's physical placement on a hard drive (http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200112/20011212short_stroke.html). As you probably already know, one will see better performance if the partition from which the system boots is on the outside of the hard disk's platter because the actuator doesn't need to move as much. How can I be certain that the partition from which I boot on my 15 GB boot drive is on the outside of the platter? When I look at the partition in NT's Disk Administrator, it is the one farthest to the left; I just don't know if NT adds partitions from the outside of the platter to the inside, or from the inside to the outside.

Thanks again for the input.
 


<< (1) I'm surpised you recommended that I put the 15GB boot drive on the ATA33 controller >>


You already mentioned your plan to stay with your old drive as your boot drive. With this in mind it would make no sense for it occupy one of the ATA66 spots with an older slower drive. Either connector won't make that drive any faster. What a server really needs as the boot drive is a FAST, low seek time drive, but using that older drive is not a big deal really... With 5 users that server will barely warmup.



<< (2) Why did you suggest having two pagefiles, one on the boot drive and one on one of the 40 GB hard drives? >>


By splitting the swap file between 2 drives... SBS4.5 has a boot partition size limit, this partition is easy to fill after a few months with log files, data, etc, etc, best not too steal all that space with (1) huge swap file. Also, the system will likely only use the 200mb boot drive swap file anyway, the second swap file is there as a safety net just incase you manage to load that server up and it needs all that swap space. More than likely that second swap file will never get touched, it's just there "incase". Keep part of the swap file on the boot partition, if for any reason you manage to boot the system without those other drives, you'll have problems if it can't see ANY swap space allocated.




<< (3) Both questions 1 and 2 assume that it's always better for a hard drive to be on an ATA66 controller. Is that a correct assumption in my scenario? Is the ATA66 controller better than the ATA33 controller only if the drive has a lot of short bursts of data transfer? For sustained data transfers, are the hard drives themselves the limiting factor and not the ATA controller? Is it more likely the the OS will call upon the boot drive for short bursts of data transfer of longer, sustained data transfer? >>


ATA66 controllers will only benefit large data transfers, such as you may do when file sharing. ATA66 won't make an older drive any faster. Short burst of data are best handled on drives with low seek times, it just so happens newer drives that can do ATA66, 100, etc also have lower seek times than the older drives.



<< 4) Storagereview.com had an interesting review that discussed a system's performance in relation to a partition's physical placement >>


Try not to think of an SBS4.5 server like you would a Quake3 screamer. Two different schools of thought, with a server file placement becomes mute once you realize there are so many functions going on at once, it's better to be stable than squeezing every drop of performance out of it. Think of it like this, 3 months down the road you and your roommates have saved files, email, etc, etc on the server and then it crashes hard one night. After someone troubleshoots they find out they lost all that data because someone was trying to squeeze extra performance out of a server that will likely have an average load of 4%. Ohhh, wow 4% load and someone tried to gain 0.02% extra out of it.... Kinda silly trying to explain to your roomates you lost all their stuff over something like that.

Real world usage of an SBS4.5 server with 35 users using; exchange, proxy, iis, and file and application serving duties... Average load during the work day on a 500mhz single CPU = 8-15% It's clear 35 users are barely taxing the server, and there are only 5 users in your house, not worth the trouble tweaking that server can cause. Don't waste your time trying to make it a speed demon, SBS4.5 is an overloaded pig, keep it fed and keep it happy, it will never be a race horse.
Good Luck

EDIT: i hope your not planning to allow anyone to use the SBS console as a normal workstation? That is asking for huge problems...don't say i didn't warn you.
 
Thanks again for all the information, BreakApart.

I should preface these comments by noting that my system at home (check out www.stevehayhurst.com)is essentially a testbed for the SBS system I have been put in charge of at work, where there are significantly more users. My detailed questions about squeezing the most performance out of the system are, foremost, to quench my curiosity for understanding the hardware and the software and, secondly, to give me ideas of how to increase the performance of our system at work.

Having said that, here are a few things:

(1) My boot drive is an IBM 75GXP. It's pretty fast and certainly is on par with the Maxtor hard drives I've installed. Since it's probably a bit faster than you thought, does this change your any of your recommendations?

(2) If I decide to use SQL, which may happen in the next six months, would you suggest a different HD and/or pagefile arrangement? Please note that I can't add more than my current 512 MB RAM.

(3) I still want to know how to verify the physical placement of a partition on my hard drive and if NT's Disk Administrator give me clues as to where they are. This is just for fun.
 


<< (1) My boot drive is an IBM 75GXP. It's pretty fast and certainly is on par with the Maxtor hard drives I've installed. Since it's probably a bit faster than you thought, does this change your any of your recommendations? >>


For a home system keep it on the ATA33 connector. Save the ATA66 connectors for the Exchange, File Sharing, and SQL files to be used on the large fast drives.


<< (2) If I decide to use SQL, which may happen in the next six months, would you suggest a different HD and/or pagefile arrangement? Please note that I can't add more than my current 512 MB RAM. >>


Hmmm, tough question it all depends how heavy the SQL usage becomes-(expected load) But i doubt you'll need anything exotic, just keep the database on the faster drives, perhaps even using one of the drives as your dedicated SQL drive. SBS4.5 has a max user limit of 50 users, now unless they all were using the SQL database you should be fine. Worst case if that did happen then upgrading to a mainboard that can hold 1-2G of memory along with a raid setup would solve that.-SQL is a heavy memory app.


<< (3) I still want to know how to verify the physical placement of a partition on my hard drive and if NT's Disk Administrator give me clues as to where they are. This is just for fun. >>


Never bothered to research that, so i can't answer that one. With servers keeping it stable, secure, and monitoring ithe load is where i spend most of my time. Make sure you patch up IIS4 nice and tight, it is one of MS's least secure apps.
 
As I've already mentioned, I have several devices hooked up to my system (3 HDs, 2 CDs, and a tape backup unit will be installed in the next week), so I have a few quick questions about cables.

(1) There are 40 pin and 80 pin IDE cables available. The 80 pin variety are, from what I understand, for ATA66, ATA100, and ATA133 devices. Should I still use an 80 pin IDE cable to hook my IBM 75GXP HD (an ATA100 device) to the ATA33 controller on the motherboard? If so, is it safe to use that same 80 pin IDE cable to hook up a CD drive (an ATA33 device) if I want it as a slave? Is it the case that 80 pin cables can be used to hook any kind of IDE device to any IDE controller?

(2) I don't have enough molex power connectors. Is it safe to use molex splitters so I can hook up more devices? Are there certain devices that I shouldn't hook up on the same molex chain? I have a Fong Kai FK-320ATX case which came with an Enhance ATX-730 power supply which has a total power rating of 300W and up to 165W combined on the +5V and +3.3V power rails (this info is from Anandtech's review of the case, so I don't know what any of that stuff means). I suppose it shouldn't be a problem because I'll never have the tape drive running when one of the CD drives is being used, but I just want to make sure.
 


<< (1) There are 40 pin and 80 pin IDE cables available. >>


Using the 80conductor cable on an ATA33 device or ATA33 IDE port, won't hurt anything, but it also won't help it go any faster. If you don't have enough regular 40conductor cables it would be fine to use the 80 it just won't help anything. Here this might help you understand...

How Does It Work? (80conductor cable)
Every other line of the 80 conductor cables is tied to ground inside the connector. This results in a much better signal quality as the crosstalk (signals from adjacent lines coupling into each other) and ground bounce are greatly reduced. The cable is backward compatible with all old ATA drives, other than 2.5" drives. The connectors still have 40 pin sockets. Ultra ATA/66/100 drives still have 40 pin connectors.



<< (2) I don't have enough molex power connectors. Is it safe to use molex splitters so I can hook up more devices? Are there certain devices that I shouldn't hook up on the same molex chain? I have a Fong Kai FK-320ATX case which came with an Enhance ATX-730 power supply which has a total power rating of 300W and up to 165W combined on the +5V and +3.3V power rails (this info is from Anandtech's review of the case, so I don't know what any of that stuff means). I suppose it shouldn't be a problem because I'll never have the tape drive running when one of the CD drives is being used, but I just want to make sure. >>


Power issues...
Don't overload any (1) molex connector, spread the workload out between all the connectors...i hate putting too many fans on (1) of the HD power leads, so i spread the load evenly.
You don't describe this system like it will be a dual CPU, or Athlon/Geforce3 power hungry monster, so the 300watt PS should be just fine.

Good Luck
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top