Windows 2008 Hardware Requirements

[Guest Andy Smith]

Hello,

 

We are in the process of planning our upgrade to Windows 2008 (luckily it

will be on new servers in a new domain).

 

What are the implications of installing Windows Server 2008 as a domain

controller running AD, DHCP, DNS and Group Policy on a SATA/150 on-board

controller, RAID-1.

 

I know it may sound like an obvious answer, but I need to justify the added

cost of jumpiing up to a hardware SAS setup, so it would be good if I could

get answers like:

 

"Do not even consider using SATA/150 because..."

 

Thanks/...

[Guest Anthony [MVP]]

Re: Windows 2008 Hardware Requirements

 

SATA will be fine. The RAID is the important part.

SAS will be faster and may have longer working life, but not essential,

A second DC is highly desirable to avoid the risk of having to recover the

whole domain from backup.

Anthony,

http://www.airdesk.co.uk

 

 

"Andy Smith" <AndySmith@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:1B919954-5337-4766-941C-FE679E140CEA@microsoft.com...

> Hello,

>

> We are in the process of planning our upgrade to Windows 2008 (luckily it

> will be on new servers in a new domain).

>

> What are the implications of installing Windows Server 2008 as a domain

> controller running AD, DHCP, DNS and Group Policy on a SATA/150 on-board

> controller, RAID-1.

>

> I know it may sound like an obvious answer, but I need to justify the

> added

> cost of jumpiing up to a hardware SAS setup, so it would be good if I

> could

> get answers like:

>

> "Do not even consider using SATA/150 because..."

>

> Thanks/...

[Guest Andy Smith]

Re: Windows 2008 Hardware Requirements

 

Really? I was not expecting that answer!!

 

Isn't anything database-ish reliant on disk throughput, such as Active

Directory, SQL, Exchange etc? If so i'm shocked that SATA/150 would be

acceptable in a production environment, especially for the most important

servers in a domain!

 

SATA/300 I would be kind of OK with. Also the MTBF is far lower on SATA

drives isn't it?

 

Thanks/...

 

 

"Anthony [MVP]" wrote:

> SATA will be fine. The RAID is the important part.

> SAS will be faster and may have longer working life, but not essential,

> A second DC is highly desirable to avoid the risk of having to recover the

> whole domain from backup.

> Anthony,

> http://www.airdesk.co.uk

>

>

> "Andy Smith" <AndySmith@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

> news:1B919954-5337-4766-941C-FE679E140CEA@microsoft.com...

> > Hello,

> >

> > We are in the process of planning our upgrade to Windows 2008 (luckily it

> > will be on new servers in a new domain).

> >

> > What are the implications of installing Windows Server 2008 as a domain

> > controller running AD, DHCP, DNS and Group Policy on a SATA/150 on-board

> > controller, RAID-1.

> >

> > I know it may sound like an obvious answer, but I need to justify the

> > added

> > cost of jumpiing up to a hardware SAS setup, so it would be good if I

> > could

> > get answers like:

> >

> > "Do not even consider using SATA/150 because..."

> >

> > Thanks/...

>

>

>

[Guest Anthony [MVP]]

Re: Windows 2008 Hardware Requirements

 

It's just a matter of cost and performance. In terms of DC's (leaving aside

SQL and Exchange) I would say the most important considerations are:

1. Hardware RAID

2. Duplication (more than one DC)

Only in very large environments would you be concerned about the performance

of the DC.

For SQL and Exchange the best thing is not to run them on the DC. So you

would need to size a separate box for that.

Anthony,

http://www.airdesk.co.uk

 

 

 

 

"Andy Smith" <AndySmith@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:5C847F30-A390-4EBD-B5B2-15C9CDBA8C8E@microsoft.com...

> Really? I was not expecting that answer!!

>

> Isn't anything database-ish reliant on disk throughput, such as Active

> Directory, SQL, Exchange etc? If so i'm shocked that SATA/150 would be

> acceptable in a production environment, especially for the most important

> servers in a domain!

>

> SATA/300 I would be kind of OK with. Also the MTBF is far lower on SATA

> drives isn't it?

>

> Thanks/...

>

>

> "Anthony [MVP]" wrote:

>

>> SATA will be fine. The RAID is the important part.

>> SAS will be faster and may have longer working life, but not essential,

>> A second DC is highly desirable to avoid the risk of having to recover

>> the

>> whole domain from backup.

>> Anthony,

>> http://www.airdesk.co.uk

>>

>>

>> "Andy Smith" <AndySmith@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

>> news:1B919954-5337-4766-941C-FE679E140CEA@microsoft.com...

>> > Hello,

>> >

>> > We are in the process of planning our upgrade to Windows 2008 (luckily

>> > it

>> > will be on new servers in a new domain).

>> >

>> > What are the implications of installing Windows Server 2008 as a domain

>> > controller running AD, DHCP, DNS and Group Policy on a SATA/150

>> > on-board

>> > controller, RAID-1.

>> >

>> > I know it may sound like an obvious answer, but I need to justify the

>> > added

>> > cost of jumpiing up to a hardware SAS setup, so it would be good if I

>> > could

>> > get answers like:

>> >

>> > "Do not even consider using SATA/150 because..."

>> >

>> > Thanks/...

>>

>>

>>

[Guest Andy Smith]

Re: Windows 2008 Hardware Requirements

 

Ahh that's what I wanted. The fact you have said hardware RAID gives me the

ammo to upgrade to a hardware SAS setup as the original SATA cost was for

CPU-assisted software RAID, which is what I don't really want to do.

 

Point 2 will also be done and I would never put anything other than AD, DNS,

DHCP on a DC anyway, not in production!

 

Thanks/...

 

"Anthony [MVP]" wrote:

> It's just a matter of cost and performance. In terms of DC's (leaving aside

> SQL and Exchange) I would say the most important considerations are:

> 1. Hardware RAID

> 2. Duplication (more than one DC)

> Only in very large environments would you be concerned about the performance

> of the DC.

> For SQL and Exchange the best thing is not to run them on the DC. So you

> would need to size a separate box for that.

> Anthony,

> http://www.airdesk.co.uk

>

>

>

>

> "Andy Smith" <AndySmith@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

> news:5C847F30-A390-4EBD-B5B2-15C9CDBA8C8E@microsoft.com...

> > Really? I was not expecting that answer!!

> >

> > Isn't anything database-ish reliant on disk throughput, such as Active

> > Directory, SQL, Exchange etc? If so i'm shocked that SATA/150 would be

> > acceptable in a production environment, especially for the most important

> > servers in a domain!

> >

> > SATA/300 I would be kind of OK with. Also the MTBF is far lower on SATA

> > drives isn't it?

> >

> > Thanks/...

> >

> >

> > "Anthony [MVP]" wrote:

> >

> >> SATA will be fine. The RAID is the important part.

> >> SAS will be faster and may have longer working life, but not essential,

> >> A second DC is highly desirable to avoid the risk of having to recover

> >> the

> >> whole domain from backup.

> >> Anthony,

> >> http://www.airdesk.co.uk

> >>

> >>

> >> "Andy Smith" <AndySmith@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

> >> news:1B919954-5337-4766-941C-FE679E140CEA@microsoft.com...

> >> > Hello,

> >> >

> >> > We are in the process of planning our upgrade to Windows 2008 (luckily

> >> > it

> >> > will be on new servers in a new domain).

> >> >

> >> > What are the implications of installing Windows Server 2008 as a domain

> >> > controller running AD, DHCP, DNS and Group Policy on a SATA/150

> >> > on-board

> >> > controller, RAID-1.

> >> >

> >> > I know it may sound like an obvious answer, but I need to justify the

> >> > added

> >> > cost of jumpiing up to a hardware SAS setup, so it would be good if I

> >> > could

> >> > get answers like:

> >> >

> >> > "Do not even consider using SATA/150 because..."

> >> >

> >> > Thanks/...

> >>

> >>

> >>

>

>

>