• 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.

how to determine what size the 'C:' partition should be in Windows Server

B

Booty

Senior member
Just wondering why Dell chooses certain partition sizes when you get a server from them. For instance, an older server has a RAID 5 array made up of 3 37-gig drives - so a formatted capacity of about 70 gigs. Of that, 4 are dedicated to the 'C' partition, the rest for 'D'. It's running 2000 server.

A newer server has 2 arrays - one is a RAID 1 array of 2-37 gig drives, the other a RAID 5 array of 3 37-gig drives. RAID 1 is split between 'C' and 'E' partitions - 12 gigs to C, the rest to E. D is the entire RAID 5 array. This is on Server 2003.

What I want to know is, why 12 gigs? Is that just arbitrary decision that whatever tech at Dell makes? Because to my knowledge, Dell doesn't ask you how you want your drives/arrays partitioned... I'm sure you could probably request they be set up a certain way, of course, but they apparently have somewhat of a default configuration. I'm just curious why they choose the configuration they do.

How would you partition your servers if they had similar hardware? We're thinking about doing away with 'E' on the 2003 server... would there be a good reason not to? Thanks for any clarification.
 
What I want to know is, why 12 gigs? Is that just arbitrary decision that whatever tech at Dell makes?
Click to expand...

It does indeed seem a poor choice, but more because of the overall RAID scheme IMO. In general, mirroring the OS and logs in a RAID-1 set and then having seperate RAID-5 array(s) for data is a solid and popular strategy.

BUT... With 5 drives I'm not so sure. You're losing one of your 37GB drive's usable space with a RAID-1 array, and another drive in the RAID 5 array, for what gain? If it were a small business server with only 2 disks, or a server that got all of it's data from the network, I would say a mirrored OS is fine. Or if it were 2 smaller disks in the RAID-1 set, that would be OK. But with just 3 RAID-5 drive on the data array, unless I was planning to add more disks/arrays to this server I'd rather have one of my drives back.

Just my opinion. There are possible performance issues with this (having your swap file on your data array is not a great idea), and no real right or wrong answer.


How would you partition your servers if they had similar hardware?
Click to expand...

There really is no cut-and-dry answer for partitioning, and it depends heavily on what application you're running and what your goals are (speed vs. fault tolerance, read performance vs. write, etc). If performance isn't a big issue and I only had 5 drives, I would probably make one RAID5 array out of the whole 5 drives and just make one LUN for the OS and the rest for data. 37GB just seems too big a waste of space for a mirrored OS. If I had any slots left in my RAID enclosure, I'd probably go hunting for 2 cheap 9 or 18GB drives and mirror those and give the other 2 37GB drives to my RAID5 array.
 
Well, it's a 2U server, so only room for one more physical drive. Unfortunately, I didn't configure the server, so... kinda stuck with it how it is. I'd like to just make the best of it, though, so I'm wondering whether I should be changing anything regarding the partitions is all.
 
personally, the first thing i do with a server is format it..... I don't want someone elses idea of a load on my server. Plus, as others have pointed out, the config of the raid, partitions, etc... have to do with the way your going to use the server.
 
We always make the C: drive ~100M and put the OS on D: that's ~4G IIRC. Those 2 are generally partitions in a mirror set and whatever's left is RAID 5 and 1 big data partition. I also think there's a partiton for the pagefile in there somewhere, but IMO that's not necessar at all.
 
Of that, 4 are dedicated to the 'C' partition
Click to expand...

This is a curse from the past. NT4 used to only be able to use a 4 gig boot partition. So add a few service packs, some careless installs of software onto the C: partition, and you have a full drive and lockup problems. AARRGGHH!

Our standard until recently was 2-18 gig drives mirrored with the OS, three 36 gig drives in a raid 5 for data, and some sort of tape drive. Excessive for small businesses? Probably. But hopefully you can't get fired for having a solid base for up time, data integrity, and recovery.

HP quit supplying 18 gig drives, so now we use 2-36 gig drives mirrored, and then figure out the needs for the customer for the data drives. We just used 4-140 gigs for a raid 10 recently.

For a small office, a three drive raid 5 with the OS and data on it is alright, but it is a fair amount of overhead if there is alot of data being accessed.

Dell creating a 12 gig OS C: seems about right to give some room to grow, but 2003 is a hog. I'd rather be nervous and have 18 gig. Win2k would be alright with that 12 gig size.
 
redbeard - you just verified my concerns. 12 gigs seemed a little small - I'll keep a close eye on that partition and be ready to resize it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top