Server 2008 R2 on seperate hdd/raid

[jae]

Are there any benefits or is it standard practice to seperate your Server OS from the data? I know we like to do this on the desktop/home side, but is it also the case for Server 2008 running a file/print server and lets say RDS? I'm just curious if its better to give the server OS its own RAID config then the file server data its own RAID?

Thanks

 

[Chiefcrowe]

Ideally, I think it is a good idea to hopefully prevent problems from affecting the entire system. If the data is on a separate channel, and if you have to restore from backups it is much easier than having to rebuild the entire machine.

 

[jae]

Ideally, I think it is a good idea to hopefully prevent problems from affecting the entire system. If the data is on a separate channel, and if you have to restore from backups it is much easier than having to rebuild the entire machine.

Thats what I was thinking. It may cost you more space/hdd but it will be easier if your system has a problem in the future.

 

[MiniDoom]

I only do it if i have separate controllers. ie, windows on volume 1 controller 1, sql logs on volume 2 controller 2, sql data files on volume 3 controller 1...

 

[Tsaico]

I do it all the time. I prefer to have something like raid 1 for my OS on their own drives (vs having a partition for this) and then a separate RAID container for the data. Drive access is often your bottleneck, and having the OS drives moving to run whatever it needs, at the same time as serving your end users their data, can really improve the performance. Even more so if you are running databases. Keep in mind, this is not just partitions, rather their own RAID containers (which I think you already got, but I wanted to make sure I was clear)