Guest Guy Posted February 24, 2008 Posted February 24, 2008 i want to partition my 160GB disk (with RAID). What is the best partitioning schema when I want to install besides the w2k3 OS SQL Server, SharePoint services and virtual server 2005 R2? Thanks.
Guest Lanwench [MVP - Exchange] Posted February 24, 2008 Posted February 24, 2008 Re: disk partition question Guy <Guy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > i want to partition my 160GB disk (with RAID). What is the best > partitioning schema when I want to install besides the w2k3 OS SQL > Server, SharePoint services and virtual server 2005 R2? > > Thanks. This is all entirely up to you....partitions are going to help you organize your stuff, but you will see no performance benefit. I think you need to do at *least* 20GB for your OS volume, ideally more. I'm not sure I'd be running SQL, Sharepoint *and* virtual server on this box, myself (I don't know the hardware specs or your expected usage) - but there's no requirement that your data be in multiple separate partitions. It'll just keep things from stepping on each others' toes. You could do a 20GB OS partition & leave the rest for data, or you could break it up. But it's a pain to try to manage multiple partitions on a server later (resizing them) so I tend to err on the side of caution. Also, I'm hoping you're using hardware RAID and good fast disks!
Guest infinitiguy Posted February 24, 2008 Posted February 24, 2008 Re: disk partition question I agree with Lanwench.. especially re: fast disks considering the applications. I've very little experience with sharepoint, but I do know its a hog.. I hope the machine you're using is a beefy one :) "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" <lanwench@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmailatyahoo.com> wrote in message news:u4X627vdIHA.748@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Guy <Guy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: >> i want to partition my 160GB disk (with RAID). What is the best >> partitioning schema when I want to install besides the w2k3 OS SQL >> Server, SharePoint services and virtual server 2005 R2? >> >> Thanks. > > This is all entirely up to you....partitions are going to help you > organize your stuff, but you will see no performance benefit. > > I think you need to do at *least* 20GB for your OS volume, ideally more. > I'm not sure I'd be running SQL, Sharepoint *and* virtual server on this > box, myself (I don't know the hardware specs or your expected usage) - but > there's no requirement that your data be in multiple separate partitions. > It'll just keep things from stepping on each others' toes. You could do a > 20GB OS partition & leave the rest for data, or you could break it up. But > it's a pain to try to manage multiple partitions on a server later > (resizing them) so I tend to err on the side of caution. > > Also, I'm hoping you're using hardware RAID and good fast disks! >
Guest Guy Posted February 24, 2008 Posted February 24, 2008 Re: disk partition question Thanks for your answers. Is it advisable to install SQL Server / WSS (I mean the base software, not the actual databases, portals) in the OS partition? Thanks "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote: > Guy <Guy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > > i want to partition my 160GB disk (with RAID). What is the best > > partitioning schema when I want to install besides the w2k3 OS SQL > > Server, SharePoint services and virtual server 2005 R2? > > > > Thanks. > > This is all entirely up to you....partitions are going to help you organize > your stuff, but you will see no performance benefit. > > I think you need to do at *least* 20GB for your OS volume, ideally more. I'm > not sure I'd be running SQL, Sharepoint *and* virtual server on this box, > myself (I don't know the hardware specs or your expected usage) - but > there's no requirement that your data be in multiple separate partitions. > It'll just keep things from stepping on each others' toes. You could do a > 20GB OS partition & leave the rest for data, or you could break it up. But > it's a pain to try to manage multiple partitions on a server later (resizing > them) so I tend to err on the side of caution. > > Also, I'm hoping you're using hardware RAID and good fast disks! > > >
Guest Lanwench [MVP - Exchange] Posted February 24, 2008 Posted February 24, 2008 Re: disk partition question Guy <Guy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > Thanks for your answers. > > Is it advisable to install SQL Server / WSS (I mean the base > software, not the actual databases, portals) in the OS partition? Sure, if you make sure to allocate enough space for that volume. I put my applications in the OS partition. Again, with a single array, all this is useful for is organization. That's not a bad thing, but it means it's less critical. > > Thanks > > "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote: > >> Guy <Guy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: >>> i want to partition my 160GB disk (with RAID). What is the best >>> partitioning schema when I want to install besides the w2k3 OS SQL >>> Server, SharePoint services and virtual server 2005 R2? >>> >>> Thanks. >> >> This is all entirely up to you....partitions are going to help you >> organize your stuff, but you will see no performance benefit. >> >> I think you need to do at *least* 20GB for your OS volume, ideally >> more. I'm not sure I'd be running SQL, Sharepoint *and* virtual >> server on this box, myself (I don't know the hardware specs or your >> expected usage) - but there's no requirement that your data be in >> multiple separate partitions. It'll just keep things from stepping >> on each others' toes. You could do a 20GB OS partition & leave the >> rest for data, or you could break it up. But it's a pain to try to >> manage multiple partitions on a server later (resizing them) so I >> tend to err on the side of caution. >> >> Also, I'm hoping you're using hardware RAID and good fast disks!
Guest Guy Posted February 24, 2008 Posted February 24, 2008 Re: disk partition question Ok thanks. Maybe that way, to be simple, its a good idea to simply split my disk in two equal sized partitions (both 80GB), first SYTEM and second DATA? Guy "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote: > Guy <Guy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > > Thanks for your answers. > > > > Is it advisable to install SQL Server / WSS (I mean the base > > software, not the actual databases, portals) in the OS partition? > > Sure, if you make sure to allocate enough space for that volume. I put my > applications in the OS partition. > > Again, with a single array, all this is useful for is organization. That's > not a bad thing, but it means it's less critical. > > > > Thanks > > > > "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote: > > > >> Guy <Guy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > >>> i want to partition my 160GB disk (with RAID). What is the best > >>> partitioning schema when I want to install besides the w2k3 OS SQL > >>> Server, SharePoint services and virtual server 2005 R2? > >>> > >>> Thanks. > >> > >> This is all entirely up to you....partitions are going to help you > >> organize your stuff, but you will see no performance benefit. > >> > >> I think you need to do at *least* 20GB for your OS volume, ideally > >> more. I'm not sure I'd be running SQL, Sharepoint *and* virtual > >> server on this box, myself (I don't know the hardware specs or your > >> expected usage) - but there's no requirement that your data be in > >> multiple separate partitions. It'll just keep things from stepping > >> on each others' toes. You could do a 20GB OS partition & leave the > >> rest for data, or you could break it up. But it's a pain to try to > >> manage multiple partitions on a server later (resizing them) so I > >> tend to err on the side of caution. > >> > >> Also, I'm hoping you're using hardware RAID and good fast disks! > > > >
Guest Lanwench [MVP - Exchange] Posted February 25, 2008 Posted February 25, 2008 Re: disk partition question Guy <Guy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > Ok thanks. > > Maybe that way, to be simple, its a good idea to simply split my disk > in two equal sized partitions (both 80GB), first SYTEM and second > DATA? I wouldn't. 80GB is not enough for a data volume if you're planning on using this for more than just a handful of test databases, etc. > > Guy > > > "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote: > >> Guy <Guy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: >>> Thanks for your answers. >>> >>> Is it advisable to install SQL Server / WSS (I mean the base >>> software, not the actual databases, portals) in the OS partition? >> >> Sure, if you make sure to allocate enough space for that volume. I >> put my applications in the OS partition. >> >> Again, with a single array, all this is useful for is organization. >> That's not a bad thing, but it means it's less critical. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote: >>> >>>> Guy <Guy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: >>>>> i want to partition my 160GB disk (with RAID). What is the best >>>>> partitioning schema when I want to install besides the w2k3 OS SQL >>>>> Server, SharePoint services and virtual server 2005 R2? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> This is all entirely up to you....partitions are going to help you >>>> organize your stuff, but you will see no performance benefit. >>>> >>>> I think you need to do at *least* 20GB for your OS volume, ideally >>>> more. I'm not sure I'd be running SQL, Sharepoint *and* virtual >>>> server on this box, myself (I don't know the hardware specs or your >>>> expected usage) - but there's no requirement that your data be in >>>> multiple separate partitions. It'll just keep things from stepping >>>> on each others' toes. You could do a 20GB OS partition & leave the >>>> rest for data, or you could break it up. But it's a pain to try to >>>> manage multiple partitions on a server later (resizing them) so I >>>> tend to err on the side of caution. >>>> >>>> Also, I'm hoping you're using hardware RAID and good fast disks!
Guest Guy Posted February 25, 2008 Posted February 25, 2008 Re: disk partition question Then probably 40GB system en the rest 120GB data would make more sense, or what would you suggest (based on the sw i would like installing on my server)? Guy "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote: > Guy <Guy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > > Ok thanks. > > > > Maybe that way, to be simple, its a good idea to simply split my disk > > in two equal sized partitions (both 80GB), first SYTEM and second > > DATA? > > I wouldn't. 80GB is not enough for a data volume if you're planning on using > this for more than just a handful of test databases, etc. > > > > > > Guy > > > > > > "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote: > > > >> Guy <Guy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > >>> Thanks for your answers. > >>> > >>> Is it advisable to install SQL Server / WSS (I mean the base > >>> software, not the actual databases, portals) in the OS partition? > >> > >> Sure, if you make sure to allocate enough space for that volume. I > >> put my applications in the OS partition. > >> > >> Again, with a single array, all this is useful for is organization. > >> That's not a bad thing, but it means it's less critical. > >>> > >>> Thanks > >>> > >>> "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote: > >>> > >>>> Guy <Guy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > >>>>> i want to partition my 160GB disk (with RAID). What is the best > >>>>> partitioning schema when I want to install besides the w2k3 OS SQL > >>>>> Server, SharePoint services and virtual server 2005 R2? > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks. > >>>> > >>>> This is all entirely up to you....partitions are going to help you > >>>> organize your stuff, but you will see no performance benefit. > >>>> > >>>> I think you need to do at *least* 20GB for your OS volume, ideally > >>>> more. I'm not sure I'd be running SQL, Sharepoint *and* virtual > >>>> server on this box, myself (I don't know the hardware specs or your > >>>> expected usage) - but there's no requirement that your data be in > >>>> multiple separate partitions. It'll just keep things from stepping > >>>> on each others' toes. You could do a 20GB OS partition & leave the > >>>> rest for data, or you could break it up. But it's a pain to try to > >>>> manage multiple partitions on a server later (resizing them) so I > >>>> tend to err on the side of caution. > >>>> > >>>> Also, I'm hoping you're using hardware RAID and good fast disks! > > > >
Guest Hank Arnold (MVP) Posted February 25, 2008 Posted February 25, 2008 Re: disk partition question Guy wrote: > i want to partition my 160GB disk (with RAID). What is the best partitioning > schema when I want to install besides the w2k3 OS SQL Server, SharePoint > services and virtual server 2005 R2? > > Thanks. > What are the machine specs (CPU(s), memory, RAID type (hareware/software, RAID 0/1/5/10)? This is not nearly an adequate setup for running what you describe. First off, partitioning is going to give you a performance hit. You're much better off with separate physical disks. 160GB isn't much space, when you are talking about the multiple applications you describe. I'd also be concerned about running that much on a single server (performance again). You will need a *LOT* of memory... -- Regards, Hank Arnold Microsoft MVP Windows Server - Directory Services
Guest Guy Posted February 25, 2008 Posted February 25, 2008 Re: disk partition question thanks for the info. I understand your point of view concerning machine specs (RAM, RAID, disk, etc.). But the setup I'm doing right now is meant as an test-prototype environment for a small number of users. In production enironment I probably need another caliber of machine(s). But I still want to setup this test-prototype env in a correct way, therefore my question as of best practices of splitting a disk in separate partitions (system, data) based on the info i mentioned, regardless of the performance will be ok or not in a prod env. Thanks. "Hank Arnold (MVP)" wrote: > Guy wrote: > > i want to partition my 160GB disk (with RAID). What is the best partitioning > > schema when I want to install besides the w2k3 OS SQL Server, SharePoint > > services and virtual server 2005 R2? > > > > Thanks. > > > > What are the machine specs (CPU(s), memory, RAID type > (hareware/software, RAID 0/1/5/10)? This is not nearly an adequate setup > for running what you describe. First off, partitioning is going to give > you a performance hit. You're much better off with separate physical > disks. 160GB isn't much space, when you are talking about the multiple > applications you describe. I'd also be concerned about running that much > on a single server (performance again). You will need a *LOT* of memory... > > -- > > Regards, > Hank Arnold > Microsoft MVP > Windows Server - Directory Services >
Guest Lanwench [MVP - Exchange] Posted February 25, 2008 Posted February 25, 2008 Re: disk partition question Guy <Guy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > Then probably 40GB system en the rest 120GB data would make more > sense, or what would you suggest (based on the sw i would like > installing on my server)? > > Guy That would be fine, but again, much depends on your own expected use. I can't predict how large your sharepoint & SQL databases are going to be. You aren't giving yourself much wiggle room here....160GB isn't much anymore. > > "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote: > >> Guy <Guy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: >>> Ok thanks. >>> >>> Maybe that way, to be simple, its a good idea to simply split my >>> disk in two equal sized partitions (both 80GB), first SYTEM and >>> second DATA? >> >> I wouldn't. 80GB is not enough for a data volume if you're planning >> on using this for more than just a handful of test databases, etc. >> >> >>> >>> Guy >>> >>> >>> "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote: >>> >>>> Guy <Guy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: >>>>> Thanks for your answers. >>>>> >>>>> Is it advisable to install SQL Server / WSS (I mean the base >>>>> software, not the actual databases, portals) in the OS partition? >>>> >>>> Sure, if you make sure to allocate enough space for that volume. I >>>> put my applications in the OS partition. >>>> >>>> Again, with a single array, all this is useful for is organization. >>>> That's not a bad thing, but it means it's less critical. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>>> "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Guy <Guy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: >>>>>>> i want to partition my 160GB disk (with RAID). What is the best >>>>>>> partitioning schema when I want to install besides the w2k3 OS >>>>>>> SQL Server, SharePoint services and virtual server 2005 R2? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is all entirely up to you....partitions are going to help >>>>>> you organize your stuff, but you will see no performance benefit. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think you need to do at *least* 20GB for your OS volume, >>>>>> ideally more. I'm not sure I'd be running SQL, Sharepoint *and* >>>>>> virtual server on this box, myself (I don't know the hardware >>>>>> specs or your expected usage) - but there's no requirement that >>>>>> your data be in multiple separate partitions. It'll just keep >>>>>> things from stepping on each others' toes. You could do a 20GB >>>>>> OS partition & leave the rest for data, or you could break it >>>>>> up. But it's a pain to try to manage multiple partitions on a >>>>>> server later (resizing them) so I tend to err on the side of >>>>>> caution. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, I'm hoping you're using hardware RAID and good fast disks!
Guest Guy Posted February 25, 2008 Posted February 25, 2008 Re: disk partition question I understand, but the system is meant as a test-prototype env. In production I probably need more disk space for pure db space. thanks "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote: > Guy <Guy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > > Then probably 40GB system en the rest 120GB data would make more > > sense, or what would you suggest (based on the sw i would like > > installing on my server)? > > > > Guy > > That would be fine, but again, much depends on your own expected use. I > can't predict how large your sharepoint & SQL databases are going to be. You > aren't giving yourself much wiggle room here....160GB isn't much anymore. > > > > > "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote: > > > >> Guy <Guy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > >>> Ok thanks. > >>> > >>> Maybe that way, to be simple, its a good idea to simply split my > >>> disk in two equal sized partitions (both 80GB), first SYTEM and > >>> second DATA? > >> > >> I wouldn't. 80GB is not enough for a data volume if you're planning > >> on using this for more than just a handful of test databases, etc. > >> > >> > >>> > >>> Guy > >>> > >>> > >>> "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote: > >>> > >>>> Guy <Guy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > >>>>> Thanks for your answers. > >>>>> > >>>>> Is it advisable to install SQL Server / WSS (I mean the base > >>>>> software, not the actual databases, portals) in the OS partition? > >>>> > >>>> Sure, if you make sure to allocate enough space for that volume. I > >>>> put my applications in the OS partition. > >>>> > >>>> Again, with a single array, all this is useful for is organization. > >>>> That's not a bad thing, but it means it's less critical. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks > >>>>> > >>>>> "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Guy <Guy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> i want to partition my 160GB disk (with RAID). What is the best > >>>>>>> partitioning schema when I want to install besides the w2k3 OS > >>>>>>> SQL Server, SharePoint services and virtual server 2005 R2? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This is all entirely up to you....partitions are going to help > >>>>>> you organize your stuff, but you will see no performance benefit. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I think you need to do at *least* 20GB for your OS volume, > >>>>>> ideally more. I'm not sure I'd be running SQL, Sharepoint *and* > >>>>>> virtual server on this box, myself (I don't know the hardware > >>>>>> specs or your expected usage) - but there's no requirement that > >>>>>> your data be in multiple separate partitions. It'll just keep > >>>>>> things from stepping on each others' toes. You could do a 20GB > >>>>>> OS partition & leave the rest for data, or you could break it > >>>>>> up. But it's a pain to try to manage multiple partitions on a > >>>>>> server later (resizing them) so I tend to err on the side of > >>>>>> caution. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Also, I'm hoping you're using hardware RAID and good fast disks! > > > >
Guest Lanwench [MVP - Exchange] Posted February 25, 2008 Posted February 25, 2008 Re: disk partition question Guy <Guy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > I understand, but the system is meant as a test-prototype env. In > production I probably need more disk space for pure db space. > thanks Then this is fine. > > > "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote: > >> Guy <Guy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: >>> Then probably 40GB system en the rest 120GB data would make more >>> sense, or what would you suggest (based on the sw i would like >>> installing on my server)? >>> >>> Guy >> >> That would be fine, but again, much depends on your own expected >> use. I can't predict how large your sharepoint & SQL databases are >> going to be. You aren't giving yourself much wiggle room >> here....160GB isn't much anymore. >> >>> >>> "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote: >>> >>>> Guy <Guy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: >>>>> Ok thanks. >>>>> >>>>> Maybe that way, to be simple, its a good idea to simply split my >>>>> disk in two equal sized partitions (both 80GB), first SYTEM and >>>>> second DATA? >>>> >>>> I wouldn't. 80GB is not enough for a data volume if you're planning >>>> on using this for more than just a handful of test databases, etc. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Guy >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Guy <Guy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Thanks for your answers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is it advisable to install SQL Server / WSS (I mean the base >>>>>>> software, not the actual databases, portals) in the OS >>>>>>> partition? >>>>>> >>>>>> Sure, if you make sure to allocate enough space for that volume. >>>>>> I put my applications in the OS partition. >>>>>> >>>>>> Again, with a single array, all this is useful for is >>>>>> organization. That's not a bad thing, but it means it's less >>>>>> critical. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Guy <Guy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> i want to partition my 160GB disk (with RAID). What is the >>>>>>>>> best partitioning schema when I want to install besides the >>>>>>>>> w2k3 OS SQL Server, SharePoint services and virtual server >>>>>>>>> 2005 R2? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is all entirely up to you....partitions are going to help >>>>>>>> you organize your stuff, but you will see no performance >>>>>>>> benefit. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think you need to do at *least* 20GB for your OS volume, >>>>>>>> ideally more. I'm not sure I'd be running SQL, Sharepoint *and* >>>>>>>> virtual server on this box, myself (I don't know the hardware >>>>>>>> specs or your expected usage) - but there's no requirement that >>>>>>>> your data be in multiple separate partitions. It'll just keep >>>>>>>> things from stepping on each others' toes. You could do a 20GB >>>>>>>> OS partition & leave the rest for data, or you could break it >>>>>>>> up. But it's a pain to try to manage multiple partitions on a >>>>>>>> server later (resizing them) so I tend to err on the side of >>>>>>>> caution. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Also, I'm hoping you're using hardware RAID and good fast >>>>>>>> disks!
Guest Guy Posted February 25, 2008 Posted February 25, 2008 Re: disk partition question Ok many thanks for your info/advice. Finally I will make 2 partitions 40GB C:\SYSTEM and 120GB D:\DATA. Install the base apps software (SQL Server, Virtual Server 2005 R2, ...) on the C:\SYSTEM partition where also the OS resides and the actual databases, virtual machines on the DATA partition. Guy "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote: > Guy <Guy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > > I understand, but the system is meant as a test-prototype env. In > > production I probably need more disk space for pure db space. > > thanks > > Then this is fine. > > > > > > "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote: > > > >> Guy <Guy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > >>> Then probably 40GB system en the rest 120GB data would make more > >>> sense, or what would you suggest (based on the sw i would like > >>> installing on my server)? > >>> > >>> Guy > >> > >> That would be fine, but again, much depends on your own expected > >> use. I can't predict how large your sharepoint & SQL databases are > >> going to be. You aren't giving yourself much wiggle room > >> here....160GB isn't much anymore. > >> > >>> > >>> "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote: > >>> > >>>> Guy <Guy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > >>>>> Ok thanks. > >>>>> > >>>>> Maybe that way, to be simple, its a good idea to simply split my > >>>>> disk in two equal sized partitions (both 80GB), first SYTEM and > >>>>> second DATA? > >>>> > >>>> I wouldn't. 80GB is not enough for a data volume if you're planning > >>>> on using this for more than just a handful of test databases, etc. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Guy > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Guy <Guy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> Thanks for your answers. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Is it advisable to install SQL Server / WSS (I mean the base > >>>>>>> software, not the actual databases, portals) in the OS > >>>>>>> partition? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sure, if you make sure to allocate enough space for that volume. > >>>>>> I put my applications in the OS partition. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Again, with a single array, all this is useful for is > >>>>>> organization. That's not a bad thing, but it means it's less > >>>>>> critical. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Guy <Guy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> i want to partition my 160GB disk (with RAID). What is the > >>>>>>>>> best partitioning schema when I want to install besides the > >>>>>>>>> w2k3 OS SQL Server, SharePoint services and virtual server > >>>>>>>>> 2005 R2? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> This is all entirely up to you....partitions are going to help > >>>>>>>> you organize your stuff, but you will see no performance > >>>>>>>> benefit. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I think you need to do at *least* 20GB for your OS volume, > >>>>>>>> ideally more. I'm not sure I'd be running SQL, Sharepoint *and* > >>>>>>>> virtual server on this box, myself (I don't know the hardware > >>>>>>>> specs or your expected usage) - but there's no requirement that > >>>>>>>> your data be in multiple separate partitions. It'll just keep > >>>>>>>> things from stepping on each others' toes. You could do a 20GB > >>>>>>>> OS partition & leave the rest for data, or you could break it > >>>>>>>> up. But it's a pain to try to manage multiple partitions on a > >>>>>>>> server later (resizing them) so I tend to err on the side of > >>>>>>>> caution. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Also, I'm hoping you're using hardware RAID and good fast > >>>>>>>> disks! > > > >
Guest Lanwench [MVP - Exchange] Posted February 25, 2008 Posted February 25, 2008 Re: disk partition question Guy <Guy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > Ok many thanks for your info/advice. > > Finally I will make 2 partitions 40GB C:\SYSTEM and 120GB D:\DATA. > Install the base apps software (SQL Server, Virtual Server 2005 R2, > ...) on the C:\SYSTEM partition where also the OS resides and the > actual databases, virtual machines on the DATA partition. > > Guy Sounds great. > > > "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote: > >> Guy <Guy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: >>> I understand, but the system is meant as a test-prototype env. In >>> production I probably need more disk space for pure db space. >>> thanks >> >> Then this is fine. >>> >>> >>> "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote: >>> >>>> Guy <Guy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: >>>>> Then probably 40GB system en the rest 120GB data would make more >>>>> sense, or what would you suggest (based on the sw i would like >>>>> installing on my server)? >>>>> >>>>> Guy >>>> >>>> That would be fine, but again, much depends on your own expected >>>> use. I can't predict how large your sharepoint & SQL databases are >>>> going to be. You aren't giving yourself much wiggle room >>>> here....160GB isn't much anymore. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Guy <Guy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Ok thanks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Maybe that way, to be simple, its a good idea to simply split my >>>>>>> disk in two equal sized partitions (both 80GB), first SYTEM and >>>>>>> second DATA? >>>>>> >>>>>> I wouldn't. 80GB is not enough for a data volume if you're >>>>>> planning on using this for more than just a handful of test >>>>>> databases, etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Guy >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Guy <Guy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Thanks for your answers. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Is it advisable to install SQL Server / WSS (I mean the base >>>>>>>>> software, not the actual databases, portals) in the OS >>>>>>>>> partition? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sure, if you make sure to allocate enough space for that >>>>>>>> volume. I put my applications in the OS partition. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Again, with a single array, all this is useful for is >>>>>>>> organization. That's not a bad thing, but it means it's less >>>>>>>> critical. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Guy <Guy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> i want to partition my 160GB disk (with RAID). What is the >>>>>>>>>>> best partitioning schema when I want to install besides the >>>>>>>>>>> w2k3 OS SQL Server, SharePoint services and virtual server >>>>>>>>>>> 2005 R2? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This is all entirely up to you....partitions are going to >>>>>>>>>> help you organize your stuff, but you will see no performance >>>>>>>>>> benefit. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think you need to do at *least* 20GB for your OS volume, >>>>>>>>>> ideally more. I'm not sure I'd be running SQL, Sharepoint >>>>>>>>>> *and* virtual server on this box, myself (I don't know the >>>>>>>>>> hardware specs or your expected usage) - but there's no >>>>>>>>>> requirement that your data be in multiple separate >>>>>>>>>> partitions. It'll just keep things from stepping on each >>>>>>>>>> others' toes. You could do a 20GB OS partition & leave the >>>>>>>>>> rest for data, or you could break it up. But it's a pain to >>>>>>>>>> try to manage multiple partitions on a server later >>>>>>>>>> (resizing them) so I tend to err on the side of caution. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Also, I'm hoping you're using hardware RAID and good fast >>>>>>>>>> disks!
Recommended Posts