RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration
Some of my opinions based on my own research. I prefer hot swappable hardware RAID 1 for all boot / system partitions no matter what the role of the server is. To me this gives the fastest disaster recovery option for situations you are unsure about with regards to OS updates and single drive failures. On a side note we used to use three mirrors for our domain controller setups. 1 for system/boot/syslog, 1 for transaction logs, and 1 for data. We mirrored this after our exchange setup, except in Exchange we used RAID 5 arrays to store the data. With regards to number of spindles and performance, I discussed this with someone on the list before (Guido) and people at HP and we came to the conclusion that with the latest 15K drives you wont see any tangible performance improvements going with multiple mirrors unless you DCs service more than 5000 people in that location where the DC resides. Judging from the original posters SMTP information, it looks like his organization has less than 5000 people in it, so I recommend his first option. Follow-up thoughts looking for group input. With regards to when is it best to use Software RAID, I have debated this with several people and I seem to favor this approach in Virtual Server Environments and using it on the System/Boot Partition for DR purposes. Another possible use for the software based mirroring might be to create live copy of server for duplication purposes (personally I think there are much better approaches out there.) Any thoughts on this? What Disk type do you all recommend? I currently still stick to the Basic Disk for the most part. (Unless I want to use software based fault-tolerance). Thanks, Todd From: Al Mulnick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 11:17 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration Interesting how much traffic this subject has garnered. But I have to ask, why? I mean, we haven't even heard the performance concepts and you're ready to put this on extra hardware no questions. What if he only had about 500 users? Would that still hold? What if it were a largely distributed environment and they had a network such that they needed many smaller vs. fewer larger DC's? Maybe a branch office environment? I hate software raid (joe's sure to put that definitionin a wiki somewhere) because of the false sense of hope it gives the implementer. But I do understand the idea of the least amount of hardware for the task at hand and not a penny more hardware than is needed. Not that I'm even coming close to endorsing software level RAID - far from it. So why not a RAID 1 partition that holds all the OS, binaries, log files, file and print facilitiesetc? It's a distributed app and could very easily work to the specs needed in a largely distributed architecture. Were RODC available, it might be chosen for some of the ones I have in mind. I'm sure you feel I'm baiting you and picking on you Gil but I am curiouswhat some of thethinking in the crowd is G On 6/22/06, Gil Kirkpatrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OS, DIT, logs on separate spindles. Enough memory to store the DIT + overhead. -gil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Al Lilianstrom Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 1:24 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration We have some budget money to replace domain controllers this year. Not all of them but probably half of them. We've pretty much decided on 64 bit Dell PowerEdge servers. Most of the discussion is about disk configuration. Two schools of thought exist here. 1) 2x73GB 15K drives in RAID1. Carve up the volume at the OS level with 20GB or so for the OS and the remainder for NTDS, Sysvol, and system state backups 2) Two sets of 2x73 10K drives in RAID1. The first set is for the OS, the second is for NTDS, Sysvol, and system state backups. I've always liked physically separating the OS from the application data. Others here like carving up the volume at the OS. Any thoughts, opinions, suggestions? tia, al -- Al Lilianstrom CD/CSS/CSI [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
Re: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration
Myrick, Todd (NIH/CC/DCRI) [E] wrote: Some of my opinions based on my own research. 1. I prefer hot swappable hardware RAID 1 for all boot / system partitions no matter what the role of the server is. To me this gives the fastest disaster recovery option for situations you are unsure about with regards to OS updates and single drive failures. On a side note we used to use three mirrors for our domain controller setups. 1 for system/boot/syslog, 1 for transaction logs, and 1 for data. We mirrored this after our exchange setup, except in Exchange we used RAID 5 arrays to store the data. 2. With regards to number of spindles and performance, I discussed this with someone on the list before (Guido) and people at HP and we came to the conclusion that with the latest 15K drives you won’t see any tangible performance improvements going with multiple mirrors unless you DC’s service more than 5000 people in that location where the DC resides. I had a feeling that 15K drives wouldn't buy me much. After some reading last night I'm even more convinced. For our size I think I'll be going with 2 mirror sets and as much memory as we can afford. 3. Judging from the original posters SMTP information, it looks like his organization has less than 5000 people in it, so I recommend his first option. While my 'organization' has less that 5000 employees we can have from 1-4000 visitors here at any time. With the Accelerator running (as it is now) we'll be crowded for the next 1.5 years. Follow-up thoughts looking for group input. With regards to when is it best to use Software RAID, I have debated this with several people and I seem to favor this approach in Virtual Server Environments and using it on the System/Boot Partition for DR purposes. Another possible use for the software based mirroring might be to create live copy of server for duplication purposes (personally I think there are much better approaches out there.) Any thoughts on this? What Disk type do you all recommend? I currently still stick to the Basic Disk for the most part. (Unless I want to use software based fault-tolerance). We use basic for most for the most part. The only time I use dynamic is when I have to create a large (5TB) volume on some of the SATA boxes that we have that host some large-ish SQL databases. al -- Al Lilianstrom CD/CSS/CSI [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
Re: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration
I think to go from 5000 users to a load metric (across organizations) is ridiculous ... one orgs 5000 users do not generate the same load as anothers 5000 users. Be careful about making comparisons like that. Just my 2c. Cheers, -BrettSh On Fri, 23 Jun 2006, Al Lilianstrom wrote: Myrick, Todd (NIH/CC/DCRI) [E] wrote: Some of my opinions based on my own research. 1. I prefer hot swappable hardware RAID 1 for all boot / system partitions no matter what the role of the server is. To me this gives the fastest disaster recovery option for situations you are unsure about with regards to OS updates and single drive failures. On a side note we used to use three mirrors for our domain controller setups. 1 for system/boot/syslog, 1 for transaction logs, and 1 for data. We mirrored this after our exchange setup, except in Exchange we used RAID 5 arrays to store the data. 2. With regards to number of spindles and performance, I discussed this with someone on the list before (Guido) and people at HP and we came to the conclusion that with the latest 15K drives you won?t see any tangible performance improvements going with multiple mirrors unless you DC?s service more than 5000 people in that location where the DC resides. I had a feeling that 15K drives wouldn't buy me much. After some reading last night I'm even more convinced. For our size I think I'll be going with 2 mirror sets and as much memory as we can afford. 3. Judging from the original posters SMTP information, it looks like his organization has less than 5000 people in it, so I recommend his first option. While my 'organization' has less that 5000 employees we can have from 1-4000 visitors here at any time. With the Accelerator running (as it is now) we'll be crowded for the next 1.5 years. Follow-up thoughts looking for group input. With regards to when is it best to use Software RAID, I have debated this with several people and I seem to favor this approach in Virtual Server Environments and using it on the System/Boot Partition for DR purposes. Another possible use for the software based mirroring might be to create live copy of server for duplication purposes (personally I think there are much better approaches out there.) Any thoughts on this? What Disk type do you all recommend? I currently still stick to the Basic Disk for the most part. (Unless I want to use software based fault-tolerance). We use basic for most for the most part. The only time I use dynamic is when I have to create a large (5TB) volume on some of the SATA boxes that we have that host some large-ish SQL databases. al -- Al Lilianstrom CD/CSS/CSI [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
Re: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration
Couldn't agree more. :) But you have to start somewhere, right? I think Todd's reasoning for NOT using software raid (joe, Huh?) is solid and likely based on being bit in the past. If you look at it logically, relying on the OS that you're trying to protect to protect from hardware issues, seems odd. Makes more sense to let hardware protect hardware and software protect software. The question then becomes, is it a software problem if the OS drive gets hosed and or is it a hardware issue? As an old spark chaser, I say it's both. However, the root cause is the hardware failure and the software failure is just a symptom of the issue. As for virtualization, remind why you would have mirrored anything in a VM? Or are you saying that the host is using virtualized mirroring? I'm confused by the statement, but I can't get my brain around the use of software raid to break up a VM's virtualized drive. Help me understand the point as I'm keenly interested in that subject at the moment. -ajm On 6/23/06, Brett Shirley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think to go from 5000 users to a load metric (across organizations) isridiculous ... one orgs 5000 users do not generate the same load as anothers 5000 users.Be careful about making comparisons like that.Justmy 2c.Cheers,-BrettShOn Fri, 23 Jun 2006, Al Lilianstrom wrote: Myrick, Todd (NIH/CC/DCRI) [E] wrote: Some of my opinions based on my own research. 1. I prefer hot swappable hardware RAID 1 for all boot / system partitions no matter what the role of the server is.To me this gives the fastest disaster recovery option for situations you are unsure about with regards to OS updates and single drive failures.On a side note we used to use three mirrors for our domain controller setups. 1 for system/boot/syslog, 1 for transaction logs, and 1 for data.We mirrored this after our exchange setup, except in Exchange we used RAID 5 arrays to store the data. 2. With regards to number of spindles and performance, I discussed this with someone on the list before (Guido) and people at HP and we came to the conclusion that with the latest 15K drives you won't see any tangible performance improvements going with multiple mirrors unless you DC's service more than 5000 people in that location where the DC resides. I had a feeling that 15K drives wouldn't buy me much. After some reading last night I'm even more convinced. For our size I think I'll be going with 2 mirror sets and as much memory as we can afford. 3. Judging from the original posters SMTP information, it looks like his organization has less than 5000 people in it, so I recommend his first option. While my 'organization' has less that 5000 employees we can have from 1-4000 visitors here at any time. With the Accelerator running (as it is now) we'll be crowded for the next 1.5 years. Follow-up thoughts looking for group input. With regards to when is it best to use Software RAID, I have debated this with several people and I seem to favor this approach in Virtual Server Environments and using it on the System/Boot Partition for DR purposes.Another possible use for the software based mirroring might be to create live copy of server for duplication purposes (personally I think there are much better approaches out there.)Any thoughts on this? What Disk type do you all recommend?I currently still stick to the Basic Disk for the most part. (Unless I want to use software based fault-tolerance). We use basic for most for the most part. The only time I use dynamic is when I have to create a large (5TB) volume on some of the SATA boxes that we have that host some large-ish SQL databases. al -- Al Lilianstrom CD/CSS/CSI [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspxList info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspxList FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration
Number of users isn't critical, it is how the system is used. While it would be odd for a 500 user system to take a beating, I don't think we could rule it out until you understand how the system is used. Any designs that go off of user count and nothing else is going to be flawed. Without the details, the recommend from me is to go as big as you can. If that doesn't end up being big enough, at least you tried and now you don't have as much more to buy now. :) So why not a RAID 1 partition that holds all the OS, binaries, log files, file and print facilitiesetc? For a low level use, I was right there with you until you said file and print my friend. ;) -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al MulnickSent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 11:17 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: Re: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration Interesting how much traffic this subject has garnered. But I have to ask, why? I mean, we haven't even heard the performance concepts and you're ready to put this on extra hardware no questions. What if he only had about 500 users? Would that still hold? What if it were a largely distributed environment and they had a network such that they needed many smaller vs. fewer larger DC's? Maybe a branch office environment? I hate software raid (joe's sure to put that definitionin a wiki somewhere) because of the false sense of hope it gives the implementer. But I do understand the idea of the least amount of hardware for the task at hand and not a penny more hardware than is needed. Not that I'm even coming close to endorsing software level RAID - far from it. So why not a RAID 1 partition that holds all the OS, binaries, log files, file and print facilitiesetc? It's a distributed app and could very easily work to the specs needed in a largely distributed architecture. Were RODC available, it might be chosen for some of the ones I have in mind. I'm sure you feel I'm baiting you and picking on you Gil but I am curiouswhat some of thethinking in the crowd is G On 6/22/06, Gil Kirkpatrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OS, DIT, logs on separate spindles.Enough memory to store the DIT + overhead.-gil-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Al Lilianstrom Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 1:24 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: [ActiveDir] DC ConfigurationWe have some budget money to replace domain controllers this year. Not all of them but probably half of them. We've pretty much decided on 64bit Dell PowerEdge servers. Most of the discussion is about diskconfiguration. Two schools of thought exist here.1) 2x73GB 15K drives in RAID1. Carve up the volume at the OS level with 20GB or so for the OS and the remainder for NTDS, Sysvol, and systemstate backups2) Two sets of 2x73 10K drives in RAID1. The first set is for the OS,the second is for NTDS, Sysvol, and system state backups. I've always liked physically separating the OS from the applicationdata. Others here like carving up the volume at the OS.Any thoughts, opinions, suggestions? tia, al--Al Lilianstrom CD/CSS/CSI[EMAIL PROTECTED]List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspxList FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspxList info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
Re: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration
Yeah, I threw that in there mostly for your benefit [1] That's correct, you cannot repeatedly build a successful system based on a single datapoint. Go big and you might get lucky, but that's not the science part of computer science. The biggest issue I tend to see is echoed across many many folks that design everything from datacenters to assembly lines. Spend the most time defining your requirements. Typically that means figuring out the usage scenarios and defining the load on the components of the system and the system as a whole. Inevetibly, you come to a point where you're guesstimating the amount becuase there is just a certain amount of historical data and just so much estimation you can do on a variable such as the future usage. You try and you do the due diligence, but eventually you estimate high. Load is far more important than number of users in determining a proper installation. I get that. I was just questioning why anyone would suggest a particular layout before hearing that information? I'll be more direct next time :) [1]and Deji. But he acts like he's been busy lately. On 6/23/06, joe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Number of users isn't critical, it is how the system is used. While it would be odd for a 500 user system to take a beating, I don't think we could rule it out until you understand how the system is used. Any designs that go off of user count and nothing else is going to be flawed. Without the details, the recommend from me is to go as big as you can. If that doesn't end up being big enough, at least you tried and now you don't have as much more to buy now. :) So why not a RAID 1 partition that holds all the OS, binaries, log files, file and print facilitiesetc? For a low level use, I was right there with you until you said file and print my friend. ;) -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Al MulnickSent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 11:17 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration Interesting how much traffic this subject has garnered. But I have to ask, why? I mean, we haven't even heard the performance concepts and you're ready to put this on extra hardware no questions. What if he only had about 500 users? Would that still hold? What if it were a largely distributed environment and they had a network such that they needed many smaller vs. fewer larger DC's? Maybe a branch office environment? I hate software raid (joe's sure to put that definitionin a wiki somewhere) because of the false sense of hope it gives the implementer. But I do understand the idea of the least amount of hardware for the task at hand and not a penny more hardware than is needed. Not that I'm even coming close to endorsing software level RAID - far from it. So why not a RAID 1 partition that holds all the OS, binaries, log files, file and print facilitiesetc? It's a distributed app and could very easily work to the specs needed in a largely distributed architecture. Were RODC available, it might be chosen for some of the ones I have in mind. I'm sure you feel I'm baiting you and picking on you Gil but I am curiouswhat some of thethinking in the crowd is G On 6/22/06, Gil Kirkpatrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OS, DIT, logs on separate spindles.Enough memory to store the DIT + overhead.-gil-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Al Lilianstrom Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 1:24 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: [ActiveDir] DC ConfigurationWe have some budget money to replace domain controllers this year. Not all of them but probably half of them. We've pretty much decided on 64 bit Dell PowerEdge servers. Most of the discussion is about diskconfiguration. Two schools of thought exist here.1) 2x73GB 15K drives in RAID1. Carve up the volume at the OS level with 20GB or so for the OS and the remainder for NTDS, Sysvol, and system state backups2) Two sets of 2x73 10K drives in RAID1. The first set is for the OS,the second is for NTDS, Sysvol, and system state backups. I've always liked physically separating the OS from the application data. Others here like carving up the volume at the OS.Any thoughts, opinions, suggestions? tia, al--Al Lilianstrom CD/CSS/CSI [EMAIL PROTECTED]List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspxList FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration
While I understand the three separate RAID array design, as I have previously mentioned I don't think it is necessary for most AD implementations because in general, the log file drive(s) will be sleeping. Most people just do not generate enough churn to get IOs bumpin on the log drive. The one exception I have seen was when Eric was inflating his big DIT. The numbers he was generating for log IOPS was far more than I have ever heard of anywhere for AD. With a generic DC across the board, it is the DIT drive that takes the pounding. I haven't seen any x64 machines with a 64bit OS on them yet to see what that looks like but obviously if there is enough RAM and the DIT has gotten into cache, this will drammatically change the footprint and at that point the OS disk I would guesswill become the busiest (excluding environments with tons of writes to AD). Even still, I haven't seen an OS on a DC that required its own dedicated spindles. While it is a cute idea for rolling back from bad updates I would rather have it figured out in extensive testing before hand than go through the extra work in production. I look at DCs as very expendable, if I hurt one, I don't think twice about rebuilding it and repromoting it; this is a very different design than say a SQL Server or Exchange Server which isn't generally expendable. So anyway, for a generic DC configuration, anything that increases the number of spindles for the DIT is where I go. If that means slapping the OS and logs on with it, I am fine with it because in the hundreds of perf logs I have had to wade through, the OS and logs are a rounding error inIOPS next to the DIT drive. I believe 5000 is the number mentioned in the guidance from MSFT and again as I said in the last post, it generally isn't great to make a decision on numbers unless you have a feeling for use as well. I can pretty much guarantee that a DC in a site with 5000 users and also a couple of really busy Exchange servers a 32 bit GC will get pounded into performing inadequately, I have seen it several times and they are always built as per that silly MSFT deployment doc. Interestingly I asked the question about how to build a DC for a given site of 3 MCS folks and Eric. The green MCS guy said exactly what the MSFT doc said - some mirrors, the two other MCS folks with heavy Exchange Enterprise experience indicated to use 10,0+1, or 5. Eric said to use x64 (he always has to be different) but after I pressed him he said to maximize the spindles as well. If you are speaking with a hardware company for recommendations, they are pretty much going to just quote you what the software company said, they pretty much need to. If they thought and said, no you should change and buy more hardware at 2000 you may look at them and say, hey now, you are trying to sell more hardware. If they say, oh no, do it at 10,000 and thenit breaks you use the MSFT guidelines to beat them saying they gave bad advice. Me... I rather overbuild my DCs and be happy and bored when the utilization goes over expected and the DCs are still purring along, not living on the edge and people are wondering what is going on and you start having to look at every single perf counter that was recorded for a week trying to work out exactly which component is the one screwing you. Hardware is CHEAP! Downtime and poor performance is EXPENSIVE. Also, let alone downs and slow email or something, it is far more expensive to bring in someone like me to spend hours or days to try and figure out that you should have bought an extra 1 GB of RAM or not followed the silly multiple mirror design or something. Plus, later, if you decide to add more functionality or upgrade your OS, you aren't sitting with a design that was for that machine at that one point in time based on an assumption that nothing would change and have to go scrambling for hardware to cover what other new thing you want to do. The hardest thing is designing for a greenfield installation... Say you are moving from some other NOS or from a mainframe environment to Windows. You have no clue what the load is going to be because there is nothing to look at so you don't know if you are under or overbuilding. Then unfortunately, numbers of users gets more important as it is the only real starting point you have. -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Myrick, Todd (NIH/CC/DCRI) [E]Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 6:41 AMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration Some of my opinions based on my own research. I prefer hot swappable hardware RAID 1 for all boot / system partitions no matter what the role of the server is. To me this gives the fastest disaster recovery option for situations you are unsure about with regards to OS updates and single drive failures
RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration
Understood, I tend to use rules of thumb a lot. Use what ever metrics and scientific methods work best for you to make informed decisions. My suggestion is to mitigate a simple hardware failure of a drive, and share what I consider acceptable performance based on published standards and the ever changing hardware environment. In the MS NT4 days it was considered rule of thumb to add additional domain controllers for ever 5000 (maybe it was 2.5K) users served. I interpreted Al's request more just a gut check, he didn't ask for empirical evidence. Todd -Original Message- From: Brett Shirley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 8:41 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration I think to go from 5000 users to a load metric (across organizations) is ridiculous ... one orgs 5000 users do not generate the same load as anothers 5000 users. Be careful about making comparisons like that. Just my 2c. Cheers, -BrettSh On Fri, 23 Jun 2006, Al Lilianstrom wrote: Myrick, Todd (NIH/CC/DCRI) [E] wrote: Some of my opinions based on my own research. 1. I prefer hot swappable hardware RAID 1 for all boot / system partitions no matter what the role of the server is. To me this gives the fastest disaster recovery option for situations you are unsure about with regards to OS updates and single drive failures. On a side note we used to use three mirrors for our domain controller setups. 1 for system/boot/syslog, 1 for transaction logs, and 1 for data. We mirrored this after our exchange setup, except in Exchange we used RAID 5 arrays to store the data. 2. With regards to number of spindles and performance, I discussed this with someone on the list before (Guido) and people at HP and we came to the conclusion that with the latest 15K drives you won't see any tangible performance improvements going with multiple mirrors unless you DC's service more than 5000 people in that location where the DC resides. I had a feeling that 15K drives wouldn't buy me much. After some reading last night I'm even more convinced. For our size I think I'll be going with 2 mirror sets and as much memory as we can afford. 3. Judging from the original posters SMTP information, it looks like his organization has less than 5000 people in it, so I recommend his first option. While my 'organization' has less that 5000 employees we can have from 1-4000 visitors here at any time. With the Accelerator running (as it is now) we'll be crowded for the next 1.5 years. Follow-up thoughts looking for group input. With regards to when is it best to use Software RAID, I have debated this with several people and I seem to favor this approach in Virtual Server Environments and using it on the System/Boot Partition for DR purposes. Another possible use for the software based mirroring might be to create live copy of server for duplication purposes (personally I think there are much better approaches out there.) Any thoughts on this? What Disk type do you all recommend? I currently still stick to the Basic Disk for the most part. (Unless I want to use software based fault-tolerance). We use basic for most for the most part. The only time I use dynamic is when I have to create a large (5TB) volume on some of the SATA boxes that we have that host some large-ish SQL databases. al -- Al Lilianstrom CD/CSS/CSI [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration
Actually, I would use a RAID 1 to hold a system / boot partition and a second partition to house a volume that holds mount points used to establish shares for File servers and a print spooler. I run across too many File servers that have shares littered across multiple drives because people needed to expand volumes, so they just add a new LUN from a SAN, or an LAS array, etc. This design is mainly for my own sanity. Todd From: joe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 9:43 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration Number of users isn't critical, it is how the system is used. While it would be odd for a 500 user system to take a beating, I don't think we could rule it out until you understand how the system is used. Any designs that go off of user count and nothing else is going to be flawed. Without the details, the recommend from me is to go as big as you can. If that doesn't end up being big enough, at least you tried and now you don't have as much more to buy now. :) So why not a RAID 1 partition that holds all the OS, binaries, log files, file and print facilitiesetc? For a low level use, I was right there with you until you said file and print my friend. ;) -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 11:17 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration Interesting how much traffic this subject has garnered. But I have to ask, why? I mean, we haven't even heard the performance concepts and you're ready to put this on extra hardware no questions. What if he only had about 500 users? Would that still hold? What if it were a largely distributed environment and they had a network such that they needed many smaller vs. fewer larger DC's? Maybe a branch office environment? I hate software raid (joe's sure to put that definitionin a wiki somewhere) because of the false sense of hope it gives the implementer. But I do understand the idea of the least amount of hardware for the task at hand and not a penny more hardware than is needed. Not that I'm even coming close to endorsing software level RAID - far from it. So why not a RAID 1 partition that holds all the OS, binaries, log files, file and print facilitiesetc? It's a distributed app and could very easily work to the specs needed in a largely distributed architecture. Were RODC available, it might be chosen for some of the ones I have in mind. I'm sure you feel I'm baiting you and picking on you Gil but I am curiouswhat some of thethinking in the crowd is G On 6/22/06, Gil Kirkpatrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OS, DIT, logs on separate spindles. Enough memory to store the DIT + overhead. -gil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Al Lilianstrom Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 1:24 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration We have some budget money to replace domain controllers this year. Not all of them but probably half of them. We've pretty much decided on 64 bit Dell PowerEdge servers. Most of the discussion is about disk configuration. Two schools of thought exist here. 1) 2x73GB 15K drives in RAID1. Carve up the volume at the OS level with 20GB or so for the OS and the remainder for NTDS, Sysvol, and system state backups 2) Two sets of 2x73 10K drives in RAID1. The first set is for the OS, the second is for NTDS, Sysvol, and system state backups. I've always liked physically separating the OS from the application data. Others here like carving up the volume at the OS. Any thoughts, opinions, suggestions? tia, al -- Al Lilianstrom CD/CSS/CSI [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration
Al, I was basically saying that I think 15K drives are the better way to go more so because it simplifies your design, reduces the number of wearable components, etc. As others have pointed out, this is a guestimate, if your servers are dedicated to additional functions, you will have to consider evaluating specific metrics to make an informed decision. Todd -Original Message- From: Al Lilianstrom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 7:49 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration Myrick, Todd (NIH/CC/DCRI) [E] wrote: Some of my opinions based on my own research. 1. I prefer hot swappable hardware RAID 1 for all boot / system partitions no matter what the role of the server is. To me this gives the fastest disaster recovery option for situations you are unsure about with regards to OS updates and single drive failures. On a side note we used to use three mirrors for our domain controller setups. 1 for system/boot/syslog, 1 for transaction logs, and 1 for data. We mirrored this after our exchange setup, except in Exchange we used RAID 5 arrays to store the data. 2. With regards to number of spindles and performance, I discussed this with someone on the list before (Guido) and people at HP and we came to the conclusion that with the latest 15K drives you won't see any tangible performance improvements going with multiple mirrors unless you DC's service more than 5000 people in that location where the DC resides. I had a feeling that 15K drives wouldn't buy me much. After some reading last night I'm even more convinced. For our size I think I'll be going with 2 mirror sets and as much memory as we can afford. 3. Judging from the original posters SMTP information, it looks like his organization has less than 5000 people in it, so I recommend his first option. While my 'organization' has less that 5000 employees we can have from 1-4000 visitors here at any time. With the Accelerator running (as it is now) we'll be crowded for the next 1.5 years. Follow-up thoughts looking for group input. With regards to when is it best to use Software RAID, I have debated this with several people and I seem to favor this approach in Virtual Server Environments and using it on the System/Boot Partition for DR purposes. Another possible use for the software based mirroring might be to create live copy of server for duplication purposes (personally I think there are much better approaches out there.) Any thoughts on this? What Disk type do you all recommend? I currently still stick to the Basic Disk for the most part. (Unless I want to use software based fault-tolerance). We use basic for most for the most part. The only time I use dynamic is when I have to create a large (5TB) volume on some of the SATA boxes that we have that host some large-ish SQL databases. al -- Al Lilianstrom CD/CSS/CSI [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration
I agree Joe, three drive arrays are overkill these days for standard DC operations. I think you and I are on the same page also with regards to real world DC Operations and DR sceneros. I didnt go into all my reasons for Mirrors either, and you brought up a good point, about being able to pull the drive for use in a test lab as well. And just to throw it in there, Dual PROCs, Power Supplies are part of my standard as well as iLO. We all know the requirements change dramatically once you add The Beast (Exchange) to the mix these days. One of the Techs here came up with a pretty radical design here with regards to Exchange 5.5 IMS servers based on how the mail conversion process worked. He had a dedicated SCSI array to make his idea work. Basically he used a combination of RAID 5 and Raid 1 for each part of the Exchange 5.5 message conversion process from IMS, MTA, to ESE Storage. I think it was a Mirror for the IMS, and the MTA got a three drive RAID 5 array. The rest got mirrors, except I think for the Exchange store which had an array. This was the NT 4 days though. Bottom line, I think his radical approach saved out buts on the week the I love You virus hit. He used a lot of Fuzzy Math to go with his gut, and a few MS white papers he found littered on Technet. With regards to 64bit computing, the larger memory is really attractive, but do you think the 2 to 3 gig limit in 32bit OSs is a problem currently with less than 5K users? I dont get out much these days so my small world brain things 3 gigs is good enough. Todd From: joe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 10:09 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration While I understand the three separate RAID array design, as I have previously mentioned I don't think it is necessary for most AD implementations because in general, the log file drive(s) will be sleeping. Most people just do not generate enough churn to get IOs bumpin on the log drive. The one exception I have seen was when Eric was inflating his big DIT. The numbers he was generating for log IOPS was far more than I have ever heard of anywhere for AD. With a generic DC across the board, it is the DIT drive that takes the pounding. I haven't seen any x64 machines with a 64bit OS on them yet to see what that looks like but obviously if there is enough RAM and the DIT has gotten into cache, this will drammatically change the footprint and at that point the OS disk I would guesswill become the busiest (excluding environments with tons of writes to AD). Even still, I haven't seen an OS on a DC that required its own dedicated spindles. While it is a cute idea for rolling back from bad updates I would rather have it figured out in extensive testing before hand than go through the extra work in production. I look at DCs as very expendable, if I hurt one, I don't think twice about rebuilding it and repromoting it; this is a very different design than say a SQL Server or Exchange Server which isn't generally expendable. So anyway, for a generic DC configuration, anything that increases the number of spindles for the DIT is where I go. If that means slapping the OS and logs on with it, I am fine with it because in the hundreds of perf logs I have had to wade through, the OS and logs are a rounding error inIOPS next to the DIT drive. I believe 5000 is the number mentioned in the guidance from MSFT and again as I said in the last post, it generally isn't great to make a decision on numbers unless you have a feeling for use as well. I can pretty much guarantee that a DC in a site with 5000 users and also a couple of really busy Exchange servers a 32 bit GC will get pounded into performing inadequately, I have seen it several times and they are always built as per that silly MSFT deployment doc. Interestingly I asked the question about how to build a DC for a given site of 3 MCS folks and Eric. The green MCS guy said exactly what the MSFT doc said - some mirrors, the two other MCS folks with heavy Exchange Enterprise experience indicated to use 10,0+1, or 5. Eric said to use x64 (he always has to be different) but after I pressed him he said to maximize the spindles as well. If you are speaking with a hardware company for recommendations, they are pretty much going to just quote you what the software company said, they pretty much need to. If they thought and said, no you should change and buy more hardware at 2000 you may look at them and say, hey now, you are trying to sell more hardware. If they say, oh no, do it at 10,000 and thenit breaks you use the MSFT guidelines to beat them saying they gave bad advice. Me... I rather overbuild my DCs and be happy and bored when the utilization goes over expected and the DCs are still purring along, not living on the edge and people are wondering what is going on and you start having to look at every single perf counter that was recorded for a week trying to work out
RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration
What would the partitions on the first configuration gain you (over just a single C:)? I thought the idea behind placing NTDS, etc on something _besides_ C: was to get the performance benefits of extra spindles (as in #2). -- nme -Original Message- From: Al Lilianstrom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 1:24 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration We have some budget money to replace domain controllers this year. Not all of them but probably half of them. We've pretty much decided on 64 bit Dell PowerEdge servers. Most of the discussion is about disk configuration. Two schools of thought exist here. 1) 2x73GB 15K drives in RAID1. Carve up the volume at the OS level with 20GB or so for the OS and the remainder for NTDS, Sysvol, and system state backups 2) Two sets of 2x73 10K drives in RAID1. The first set is for the OS, the second is for NTDS, Sysvol, and system state backups. I've always liked physically separating the OS from the application data. Others here like carving up the volume at the OS. Any thoughts, opinions, suggestions? tia, al -- Al Lilianstrom CD/CSS/CSI [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/370 - Release Date: 6/20/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/370 - Release Date: 6/20/2006 List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
Re: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration
There would be a little more to gain than that but often that's the reason. joe might point out that a two mirror configuration is not his optimal configuration. I'm pretty sure he'd also point out that compared with software raid, that he'd take that option. :) I can honestly say I'd agree with him on this one. Software mirroring for this type of application is never a good idea. The slower spindle speeds likely won't be enough of an issue to matter in your configuration. Unless you have a very large DIT queue jokes here or applications that pound the snot out of the individual servers spindle speed won't be nearly as important. Since it's 64 bit you're after, spend some money on the memory and take advantage of the cache as much as you can. Al On 6/22/06, Noah Eiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What would the partitions on the first configuration gain you (over just asingle C:)? I thought the idea behind placing NTDS, etc on something _besides_ C: was to get the performance benefits of extra spindles (as in#2).-- nme-Original Message-From: Al Lilianstrom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 1:24 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: [ActiveDir] DC ConfigurationWe have some budget money to replace domain controllers this year. Not all of them but probably half of them. We've pretty much decided on 64bit Dell PowerEdge servers. Most of the discussion is about diskconfiguration. Two schools of thought exist here.1) 2x73GB 15K drives in RAID1. Carve up the volume at the OS level with 20GB or so for the OS and the remainder for NTDS, Sysvol, and systemstate backups2) Two sets of 2x73 10K drives in RAID1. The first set is for the OS,the second is for NTDS, Sysvol, and system state backups. I've always liked physically separating the OS from the applicationdata. Others here like carving up the volume at the OS.Any thoughts, opinions, suggestions? tia, al--Al Lilianstrom CD/CSS/CSI[EMAIL PROTECTED]List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspxList FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx--No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/370 - Release Date: 6/20/2006--No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/370 - Release Date: 6/20/2006 List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspxList FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration
Al - Look in the archivies from 11/05 for the Raid suggestions for DC thread. It was discussed most thoroughly by some of our luminaries :-) HTH -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al Lilianstrom Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 1:24 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration We have some budget money to replace domain controllers this year. Not all of them but probably half of them. We've pretty much decided on 64 bit Dell PowerEdge servers. Most of the discussion is about disk configuration. Two schools of thought exist here. 1) 2x73GB 15K drives in RAID1. Carve up the volume at the OS level with 20GB or so for the OS and the remainder for NTDS, Sysvol, and system state backups 2) Two sets of 2x73 10K drives in RAID1. The first set is for the OS, the second is for NTDS, Sysvol, and system state backups. I've always liked physically separating the OS from the application data. Others here like carving up the volume at the OS. Any thoughts, opinions, suggestions? tia, al -- Al Lilianstrom CD/CSS/CSI [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration
o Software RAID? What's that? o Yeah I am not a fan of mirrors. I like lots of spindles.But then I tend to work with bigbusy directorieswith Exchange beating on it. Being 64 bit you don't have to worry _as much_ assuming you have enough RAM to cache your entire DIT but you still have to load that baby in the first place so I would still recommend RAID 0+1, 10, or 5 or if you don't care about fault tolerance the fastest is RAID-0. o I would say if you are going 64 bit, make sure you make it a priority to get enough RAM tohold your entire DIT. That is the cool thing about getting 64 bit. -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al MulnickSent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 5:12 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: Re: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration There would be a little more to gain than that but often that's the reason. joe might point out that a two mirror configuration is not his optimal configuration. I'm pretty sure he'd also point out that compared with software raid, that he'd take that option. :) I can honestly say I'd agree with him on this one. Software mirroring for this type of application is never a good idea. The slower spindle speeds likely won't be enough of an issue to matter in your configuration. Unless you have a very large DIT queue jokes here or applications that pound the snot out of the individual servers spindle speed won't be nearly as important. Since it's 64 bit you're after, spend some money on the memory and take advantage of the cache as much as you can. Al On 6/22/06, Noah Eiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What would the partitions on the first configuration gain you (over just asingle C:)? I thought the idea behind placing NTDS, etc on something _besides_ C: was to get the performance benefits of extra spindles (as in#2).-- nme-Original Message-From: Al Lilianstrom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 1:24 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: [ActiveDir] DC ConfigurationWe have some budget money to replace domain controllers this year. Not all of them but probably half of them. We've pretty much decided on 64bit Dell PowerEdge servers. Most of the discussion is about diskconfiguration. Two schools of thought exist here.1) 2x73GB 15K drives in RAID1. Carve up the volume at the OS level with 20GB or so for the OS and the remainder for NTDS, Sysvol, and systemstate backups2) Two sets of 2x73 10K drives in RAID1. The first set is for the OS,the second is for NTDS, Sysvol, and system state backups. I've always liked physically separating the OS from the applicationdata. Others here like carving up the volume at the OS.Any thoughts, opinions, suggestions? tia, al--Al Lilianstrom CD/CSS/CSI[EMAIL PROTECTED]List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspxList FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx--No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/370 - Release Date: 6/20/2006--No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/370 - Release Date: 6/20/2006 List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspxList FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration
Software RAID is where the OS (in this case) handles the striping of the data rather than the hardware (usually the controller). From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joeSent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 3:05 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration o Software RAID? What's that? o Yeah I am not a fan of mirrors. I like lots of spindles.But then I tend to work with bigbusy directorieswith Exchange beating on it. Being 64 bit you don't have to worry _as much_ assuming you have enough RAM to cache your entire DIT but you still have to load that baby in the first place so I would still recommend RAID 0+1, 10, or 5 or if you don't care about fault tolerance the fastest is RAID-0. o I would say if you are going 64 bit, make sure you make it a priority to get enough RAM tohold your entire DIT. That is the cool thing about getting 64 bit. -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al MulnickSent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 5:12 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: Re: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration There would be a little more to gain than that but often that's the reason. joe might point out that a two mirror configuration is not his optimal configuration. I'm pretty sure he'd also point out that compared with software raid, that he'd take that option. :) I can honestly say I'd agree with him on this one. Software mirroring for this type of application is never a good idea. The slower spindle speeds likely won't be enough of an issue to matter in your configuration. Unless you have a very large DIT queue jokes here or applications that pound the snot out of the individual servers spindle speed won't be nearly as important. Since it's 64 bit you're after, spend some money on the memory and take advantage of the cache as much as you can. Al On 6/22/06, Noah Eiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What would the partitions on the first configuration gain you (over just asingle C:)? I thought the idea behind placing NTDS, etc on something _besides_ C: was to get the performance benefits of extra spindles (as in#2).-- nme-Original Message-From: Al Lilianstrom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 1:24 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: [ActiveDir] DC ConfigurationWe have some budget money to replace domain controllers this year. Not all of them but probably half of them. We've pretty much decided on 64bit Dell PowerEdge servers. Most of the discussion is about diskconfiguration. Two schools of thought exist here.1) 2x73GB 15K drives in RAID1. Carve up the volume at the OS level with 20GB or so for the OS and the remainder for NTDS, Sysvol, and systemstate backups2) Two sets of 2x73 10K drives in RAID1. The first set is for the OS,the second is for NTDS, Sysvol, and system state backups. I've always liked physically separating the OS from the applicationdata. Others here like carving up the volume at the OS.Any thoughts, opinions, suggestions? tia, al--Al Lilianstrom CD/CSS/CSI[EMAIL PROTECTED]List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspxList FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx--No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/370 - Release Date: 6/20/2006--No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/370 - Release Date: 6/20/2006 List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspxList FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration
ROFL! That was more of a case of purposely refusing to acknowledge software RAID versus truly understanding what it is. I have had far more than my share of times trying to rebuild software raid configs. -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darren Mar-EliaSent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 6:14 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration Software RAID is where the OS (in this case) handles the striping of the data rather than the hardware (usually the controller). From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joeSent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 3:05 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration o Software RAID? What's that? o Yeah I am not a fan of mirrors. I like lots of spindles.But then I tend to work with bigbusy directorieswith Exchange beating on it. Being 64 bit you don't have to worry _as much_ assuming you have enough RAM to cache your entire DIT but you still have to load that baby in the first place so I would still recommend RAID 0+1, 10, or 5 or if you don't care about fault tolerance the fastest is RAID-0. o I would say if you are going 64 bit, make sure you make it a priority to get enough RAM tohold your entire DIT. That is the cool thing about getting 64 bit. -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al MulnickSent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 5:12 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: Re: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration There would be a little more to gain than that but often that's the reason. joe might point out that a two mirror configuration is not his optimal configuration. I'm pretty sure he'd also point out that compared with software raid, that he'd take that option. :) I can honestly say I'd agree with him on this one. Software mirroring for this type of application is never a good idea. The slower spindle speeds likely won't be enough of an issue to matter in your configuration. Unless you have a very large DIT queue jokes here or applications that pound the snot out of the individual servers spindle speed won't be nearly as important. Since it's 64 bit you're after, spend some money on the memory and take advantage of the cache as much as you can. Al On 6/22/06, Noah Eiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What would the partitions on the first configuration gain you (over just asingle C:)? I thought the idea behind placing NTDS, etc on something _besides_ C: was to get the performance benefits of extra spindles (as in#2).-- nme-Original Message-From: Al Lilianstrom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 1:24 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: [ActiveDir] DC ConfigurationWe have some budget money to replace domain controllers this year. Not all of them but probably half of them. We've pretty much decided on 64bit Dell PowerEdge servers. Most of the discussion is about diskconfiguration. Two schools of thought exist here.1) 2x73GB 15K drives in RAID1. Carve up the volume at the OS level with 20GB or so for the OS and the remainder for NTDS, Sysvol, and systemstate backups2) Two sets of 2x73 10K drives in RAID1. The first set is for the OS,the second is for NTDS, Sysvol, and system state backups. I've always liked physically separating the OS from the applicationdata. Others here like carving up the volume at the OS.Any thoughts, opinions, suggestions? tia, al--Al Lilianstrom CD/CSS/CSI[EMAIL PROTECTED]List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspxList FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx--No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/370 - Release Date: 6/20/2006--No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/370 - Release Date: 6/20/2006 List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspxList FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
Re: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration
Free, Bob wrote: Al - Look in the archivies from 11/05 for the Raid suggestions for DC thread. It was discussed most thoroughly by some of our luminaries :-) Will do. Thanks, al HTH -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al Lilianstrom Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 1:24 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration We have some budget money to replace domain controllers this year. Not all of them but probably half of them. We've pretty much decided on 64 bit Dell PowerEdge servers. Most of the discussion is about disk configuration. Two schools of thought exist here. 1) 2x73GB 15K drives in RAID1. Carve up the volume at the OS level with 20GB or so for the OS and the remainder for NTDS, Sysvol, and system state backups 2) Two sets of 2x73 10K drives in RAID1. The first set is for the OS, the second is for NTDS, Sysvol, and system state backups. I've always liked physically separating the OS from the application data. Others here like carving up the volume at the OS. Any thoughts, opinions, suggestions? tia, al List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
Re: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration
Al Mulnick wrote: There would be a little more to gain than that but often that's the reason. joe might point out that a two mirror configuration is not his optimal configuration. I'm pretty sure he'd also point out that compared with software raid, that he'd take that option. :) I can honestly say I'd agree with him on this one. Software mirroring for this type of application is never a good idea. The slower spindle speeds likely won't be enough of an issue to matter in your configuration. Unless you have a very large DIT queue jokes here or applications that pound the snot out of the individual servers spindle speed won't be nearly as important. Since it's 64 bit you're after, spend some money on the memory and take advantage of the cache as much as you can. Al On 6/22/06, *Noah Eiger* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What would the partitions on the first configuration gain you (over just a single C:)? I thought the idea behind placing NTDS, etc on something _besides_ C: was to get the performance benefits of extra spindles (as in #2). The mirrors would be in hardware. Software raid - only time I've ever lost customer data was due to software raid. Never again. Splitting a large volume into two partitions gains nothing IMO. Personally I like my databases on different spindles than the OS. We have some Unix based apps that hit the DC's pretty hard. Their use is only going up. We should be able to fit the DIT in memory so I think I'll push for that. Not sure it's a battle I can win but it's always fun to try. thanks, (the other) al [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- nme -Original Message- From: Al Lilianstrom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 1:24 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org mailto:ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration We have some budget money to replace domain controllers this year. Not all of them but probably half of them. We've pretty much decided on 64 bit Dell PowerEdge servers. Most of the discussion is about disk configuration. Two schools of thought exist here. 1) 2x73GB 15K drives in RAID1. Carve up the volume at the OS level with 20GB or so for the OS and the remainder for NTDS, Sysvol, and system state backups 2) Two sets of 2x73 10K drives in RAID1. The first set is for the OS, the second is for NTDS, Sysvol, and system state backups. I've always liked physically separating the OS from the application data. Others here like carving up the volume at the OS. Any thoughts, opinions, suggestions? tia, al -- List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
Re: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration
Free, Bob wrote: Al - Look in the archivies from 11/05 for the Raid suggestions for DC thread. It was discussed most thoroughly by some of our luminaries :-) Will do. Thanks, al HTH -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al Lilianstrom Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 1:24 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration We have some budget money to replace domain controllers this year. Not all of them but probably half of them. We've pretty much decided on 64 bit Dell PowerEdge servers. Most of the discussion is about disk configuration. Two schools of thought exist here. 1) 2x73GB 15K drives in RAID1. Carve up the volume at the OS level with 20GB or so for the OS and the remainder for NTDS, Sysvol, and system state backups 2) Two sets of 2x73 10K drives in RAID1. The first set is for the OS, the second is for NTDS, Sysvol, and system state backups. I've always liked physically separating the OS from the application data. Others here like carving up the volume at the OS. Any thoughts, opinions, suggestions? tia, al List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration
Yea, it seemed an awful basic question for you joe. And, of course I fell for it. Agreed though that software RAID is like Congress creating its own ethics rules--just a bad idea all around. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joeSent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 3:16 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration ROFL! That was more of a case of purposely refusing to acknowledge software RAID versus truly understanding what it is. I have had far more than my share of times trying to rebuild software raid configs. -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darren Mar-EliaSent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 6:14 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration Software RAID is where the OS (in this case) handles the striping of the data rather than the hardware (usually the controller). From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joeSent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 3:05 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration o Software RAID? What's that? o Yeah I am not a fan of mirrors. I like lots of spindles.But then I tend to work with bigbusy directorieswith Exchange beating on it. Being 64 bit you don't have to worry _as much_ assuming you have enough RAM to cache your entire DIT but you still have to load that baby in the first place so I would still recommend RAID 0+1, 10, or 5 or if you don't care about fault tolerance the fastest is RAID-0. o I would say if you are going 64 bit, make sure you make it a priority to get enough RAM tohold your entire DIT. That is the cool thing about getting 64 bit. -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al MulnickSent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 5:12 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: Re: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration There would be a little more to gain than that but often that's the reason. joe might point out that a two mirror configuration is not his optimal configuration. I'm pretty sure he'd also point out that compared with software raid, that he'd take that option. :) I can honestly say I'd agree with him on this one. Software mirroring for this type of application is never a good idea. The slower spindle speeds likely won't be enough of an issue to matter in your configuration. Unless you have a very large DIT queue jokes here or applications that pound the snot out of the individual servers spindle speed won't be nearly as important. Since it's 64 bit you're after, spend some money on the memory and take advantage of the cache as much as you can. Al On 6/22/06, Noah Eiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What would the partitions on the first configuration gain you (over just asingle C:)? I thought the idea behind placing NTDS, etc on something _besides_ C: was to get the performance benefits of extra spindles (as in#2).-- nme-Original Message-From: Al Lilianstrom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 1:24 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: [ActiveDir] DC ConfigurationWe have some budget money to replace domain controllers this year. Not all of them but probably half of them. We've pretty much decided on 64bit Dell PowerEdge servers. Most of the discussion is about diskconfiguration. Two schools of thought exist here.1) 2x73GB 15K drives in RAID1. Carve up the volume at the OS level with 20GB or so for the OS and the remainder for NTDS, Sysvol, and systemstate backups2) Two sets of 2x73 10K drives in RAID1. The first set is for the OS,the second is for NTDS, Sysvol, and system state backups. I've always liked physically separating the OS from the applicationdata. Others here like carving up the volume at the OS.Any thoughts, opinions, suggestions? tia, al--Al Lilianstrom CD/CSS/CSI[EMAIL PROTECTED]List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspxList FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx--No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/370 - Release Date: 6/20/2006--No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/370 - Release Date: 6/20/2006 List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspxList FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration
You must be thinking of a different kind of RAID. Last I checked software RAID was something to do with roach spray. Thanks, Brian Desmond [EMAIL PROTECTED] c - 312.731.3132 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darren Mar-Elia Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 5:14 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration Software RAID is where the OS (in this case) handles the striping of the data rather than the hardware (usually the controller). From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 3:05 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration o Software RAID? What's that? o Yeah I am not a fan of mirrors. I like lots of spindles.But then I tend to work with bigbusy directorieswith Exchange beating on it. Being 64 bit you don't have to worry _as much_ assuming you have enough RAM to cache your entire DIT but you still have to load that baby in the first place so I would still recommend RAID 0+1, 10, or 5 or if you don't care about fault tolerance the fastest is RAID-0. o I would say if you are going 64 bit, make sure you make it a priority to get enough RAM tohold your entire DIT. That is the cool thing about getting 64 bit. -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 5:12 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration There would be a little more to gain than that but often that's the reason. joe might point out that a two mirror configuration is not his optimal configuration. I'm pretty sure he'd also point out that compared with software raid, that he'd take that option. :) I can honestly say I'd agree with him on this one. Software mirroring for this type of application is never a good idea. The slower spindle speeds likely won't be enough of an issue to matter in your configuration. Unless you have a very large DIT queue jokes here or applications that pound the snot out of the individual servers spindle speed won't be nearly as important. Since it's 64 bit you're after, spend some money on the memory and take advantage of the cache as much as you can. Al On 6/22/06, Noah Eiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What would the partitions on the first configuration gain you (over just a single C:)? I thought the idea behind placing NTDS, etc on something _besides_ C: was to get the performance benefits of extra spindles (as in #2). -- nme -Original Message- From: Al Lilianstrom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 1:24 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration We have some budget money to replace domain controllers this year. Not all of them but probably half of them. We've pretty much decided on 64 bit Dell PowerEdge servers. Most of the discussion is about disk configuration. Two schools of thought exist here. 1) 2x73GB 15K drives in RAID1. Carve up the volume at the OS level with 20GB or so for the OS and the remainder for NTDS, Sysvol, and system state backups 2) Two sets of 2x73 10K drives in RAID1. The first set is for the OS, the second is for NTDS, Sysvol, and system state backups. I've always liked physically separating the OS from the application data. Others here like carving up the volume at the OS. Any thoughts, opinions, suggestions? tia, al -- Al Lilianstrom CD/CSS/CSI [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/370 - Release Date: 6/20/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/370 - Release Date: 6/20/2006 List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration
Exactly... Congress: Ethics? What's that? -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darren Mar-EliaSent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 6:25 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration Yea, it seemed an awful basic question for you joe. And, of course I fell for it. Agreed though that software RAID is like Congress creating its own ethics rules--just a bad idea all around. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joeSent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 3:16 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration ROFL! That was more of a case of purposely refusing to acknowledge software RAID versus truly understanding what it is. I have had far more than my share of times trying to rebuild software raid configs. -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darren Mar-EliaSent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 6:14 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration Software RAID is where the OS (in this case) handles the striping of the data rather than the hardware (usually the controller). From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joeSent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 3:05 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration o Software RAID? What's that? o Yeah I am not a fan of mirrors. I like lots of spindles.But then I tend to work with bigbusy directorieswith Exchange beating on it. Being 64 bit you don't have to worry _as much_ assuming you have enough RAM to cache your entire DIT but you still have to load that baby in the first place so I would still recommend RAID 0+1, 10, or 5 or if you don't care about fault tolerance the fastest is RAID-0. o I would say if you are going 64 bit, make sure you make it a priority to get enough RAM tohold your entire DIT. That is the cool thing about getting 64 bit. -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al MulnickSent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 5:12 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: Re: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration There would be a little more to gain than that but often that's the reason. joe might point out that a two mirror configuration is not his optimal configuration. I'm pretty sure he'd also point out that compared with software raid, that he'd take that option. :) I can honestly say I'd agree with him on this one. Software mirroring for this type of application is never a good idea. The slower spindle speeds likely won't be enough of an issue to matter in your configuration. Unless you have a very large DIT queue jokes here or applications that pound the snot out of the individual servers spindle speed won't be nearly as important. Since it's 64 bit you're after, spend some money on the memory and take advantage of the cache as much as you can. Al On 6/22/06, Noah Eiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What would the partitions on the first configuration gain you (over just asingle C:)? I thought the idea behind placing NTDS, etc on something _besides_ C: was to get the performance benefits of extra spindles (as in#2).-- nme-Original Message-From: Al Lilianstrom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 1:24 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: [ActiveDir] DC ConfigurationWe have some budget money to replace domain controllers this year. Not all of them but probably half of them. We've pretty much decided on 64bit Dell PowerEdge servers. Most of the discussion is about diskconfiguration. Two schools of thought exist here.1) 2x73GB 15K drives in RAID1. Carve up the volume at the OS level with 20GB or so for the OS and the remainder for NTDS, Sysvol, and systemstate backups2) Two sets of 2x73 10K drives in RAID1. The first set is for the OS,the second is for NTDS, Sysvol, and system state backups. I've always liked physically separating the OS from the applicationdata. Others here like carving up the volume at the OS.Any thoughts, opinions, suggestions? tia, al--Al Lilianstrom CD/CSS/CSI[EMAIL PROTECTED]List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspxList FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx--No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/370 - Release Date: 6/20/2006--No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/370 - Release Date: 6/20/2006 List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspxList FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http
RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration
OS, DIT, logs on separate spindles. Enough memory to store the DIT + overhead. -gil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al Lilianstrom Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 1:24 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration We have some budget money to replace domain controllers this year. Not all of them but probably half of them. We've pretty much decided on 64 bit Dell PowerEdge servers. Most of the discussion is about disk configuration. Two schools of thought exist here. 1) 2x73GB 15K drives in RAID1. Carve up the volume at the OS level with 20GB or so for the OS and the remainder for NTDS, Sysvol, and system state backups 2) Two sets of 2x73 10K drives in RAID1. The first set is for the OS, the second is for NTDS, Sysvol, and system state backups. I've always liked physically separating the OS from the application data. Others here like carving up the volume at the OS. Any thoughts, opinions, suggestions? tia, al -- Al Lilianstrom CD/CSS/CSI [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration
Ethics? Thats the stuff the guys in the other party don't have. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joeSent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 3:52 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration Exactly... Congress: Ethics? What's that? -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darren Mar-EliaSent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 6:25 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration Yea, it seemed an awful basic question for you joe. And, of course I fell for it. Agreed though that software RAID is like Congress creating its own ethics rules--just a bad idea all around. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joeSent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 3:16 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration ROFL! That was more of a case of purposely refusing to acknowledge software RAID versus truly understanding what it is. I have had far more than my share of times trying to rebuild software raid configs. -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darren Mar-EliaSent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 6:14 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration Software RAID is where the OS (in this case) handles the striping of the data rather than the hardware (usually the controller). From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joeSent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 3:05 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration o Software RAID? What's that? o Yeah I am not a fan of mirrors. I like lots of spindles.But then I tend to work with bigbusy directorieswith Exchange beating on it. Being 64 bit you don't have to worry _as much_ assuming you have enough RAM to cache your entire DIT but you still have to load that baby in the first place so I would still recommend RAID 0+1, 10, or 5 or if you don't care about fault tolerance the fastest is RAID-0. o I would say if you are going 64 bit, make sure you make it a priority to get enough RAM tohold your entire DIT. That is the cool thing about getting 64 bit. -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al MulnickSent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 5:12 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: Re: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration There would be a little more to gain than that but often that's the reason. joe might point out that a two mirror configuration is not his optimal configuration. I'm pretty sure he'd also point out that compared with software raid, that he'd take that option. :) I can honestly say I'd agree with him on this one. Software mirroring for this type of application is never a good idea. The slower spindle speeds likely won't be enough of an issue to matter in your configuration. Unless you have a very large DIT queue jokes here or applications that pound the snot out of the individual servers spindle speed won't be nearly as important. Since it's 64 bit you're after, spend some money on the memory and take advantage of the cache as much as you can. Al On 6/22/06, Noah Eiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What would the partitions on the first configuration gain you (over just asingle C:)? I thought the idea behind placing NTDS, etc on something _besides_ C: was to get the performance benefits of extra spindles (as in#2).-- nme-Original Message-From: Al Lilianstrom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 1:24 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: [ActiveDir] DC ConfigurationWe have some budget money to replace domain controllers this year. Not all of them but probably half of them. We've pretty much decided on 64bit Dell PowerEdge servers. Most of the discussion is about diskconfiguration. Two schools of thought exist here.1) 2x73GB 15K drives in RAID1. Carve up the volume at the OS level with 20GB or so for the OS and the remainder for NTDS, Sysvol, and systemstate backups2) Two sets of 2x73 10K drives in RAID1. The first set is for the OS,the second is for NTDS, Sysvol, and system state backups. I've always liked physically separating the OS from the applicationdata. Others here like carving up the volume at the OS.Any thoughts, opinions, suggestions? tia, al--Al Lilianstrom CD/CSS/CSI[EMAIL PROTECTED]List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspxList FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx--No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/370 - Release Date: 6/20/2006--No virus found
Re: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration
...whichever party that may be. On 6/22/06, Gil Kirkpatrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ethics? Thats the stuff the guys in the other party don't have. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 3:52 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 3:52 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration Exactly... Congress: Ethics? What's that? -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darren Mar-Elia Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 6:25 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration Yea, it seemed an awful basic question for you joe. And, of course I fell for it. Agreed though that software RAID is like Congress creating its own ethics rules--just a bad idea all around. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 3:16 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration ROFL! That was more of a case of purposely refusing to acknowledge software RAID versus truly understanding what it is. I have had far more than my share of times trying to rebuild software raid configs. -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darren Mar-Elia Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 6:14 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration Software RAID is where the OS (in this case) handles the striping of the data rather than the hardware (usually the controller). From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 3:05 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration o Software RAID? What's that? o Yeah I am not a fan of mirrors. I like lots of spindles. But then I tend to work with big busy directories with Exchange beating on it. Being 64 bit you don't have to worry _as much_ assuming you have enough RAM to cache your entire DIT but you still have to load that baby in the first place so I would still recommend RAID 0+1, 10, or 5 or if you don't care about fault tolerance the fastest is RAID-0. o I would say if you are going 64 bit, make sure you make it a priority to get enough RAM to hold your entire DIT. That is the cool thing about getting 64 bit. -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 5:12 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration There would be a little more to gain than that but often that's the reason. joe might point out that a two mirror configuration is not his optimal configuration. I'm pretty sure he'd also point out that compared with software raid, that he'd take that option. :) I can honestly say I'd agree with him on this one. Software mirroring for this type of application is never a good idea. The slower spindle speeds likely won't be enough of an issue to matter in your configuration. Unless you have a very large DIT queue jokes here or applications that pound the snot out of the individual servers spindle speed won't be nearly as important. Since it's 64 bit you're after, spend some money on the memory and take advantage of the cache as much as you can. Al On 6/22/06, Noah Eiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What would the partitions on the first configuration gain you (over just a single C:)? I thought the idea behind placing NTDS, etc on something _besides_ C: was to get the performance benefits of extra spindles (as in #2). -- nme -Original Message- From: Al Lilianstrom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 1:24 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration We have some budget money to replace domain controllers this year. Not all of them but probably half of them. We've pretty much decided on 64 bit Dell PowerEdge servers. Most of the discussion is about disk configuration. Two schools of thought exist here. 1) 2x73GB 15K drives in RAID1. Carve up the volume at the OS level with 20GB or so for the OS and the remainder for NTDS, Sysvol, and system state backups 2) Two sets of 2x73 10K drives in RAID1. The first set is for the OS, the second is for NTDS, Sysvol, and system state backups. I've always liked physically separating the OS from the application data. Others here like carving up the volume at the OS
Re: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration
Interesting how much traffic this subject has garnered. But I have to ask, why? I mean, we haven't even heard the performance concepts and you're ready to put this on extra hardware no questions. What if he only had about 500 users? Would that still hold? What if it were a largely distributed environment and they had a network such that they needed many smaller vs. fewer larger DC's? Maybe a branch office environment? I hate software raid (joe's sure to put that definitionin a wiki somewhere) because of the false sense of hope it gives the implementer. But I do understand the idea of the least amount of hardware for the task at hand and not a penny more hardware than is needed. Not that I'm even coming close to endorsing software level RAID - far from it. So why not a RAID 1 partition that holds all the OS, binaries, log files, file and print facilitiesetc? It's a distributed app and could very easily work to the specs needed in a largely distributed architecture. Were RODC available, it might be chosen for some of the ones I have in mind. I'm sure you feel I'm baiting you and picking on you Gil but I am curiouswhat some of thethinking in the crowd is G On 6/22/06, Gil Kirkpatrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OS, DIT, logs on separate spindles.Enough memory to store the DIT + overhead.-gil-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Al Lilianstrom Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 1:24 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: [ActiveDir] DC ConfigurationWe have some budget money to replace domain controllers this year. Not all of them but probably half of them. We've pretty much decided on 64bit Dell PowerEdge servers. Most of the discussion is about diskconfiguration. Two schools of thought exist here.1) 2x73GB 15K drives in RAID1. Carve up the volume at the OS level with 20GB or so for the OS and the remainder for NTDS, Sysvol, and systemstate backups2) Two sets of 2x73 10K drives in RAID1. The first set is for the OS,the second is for NTDS, Sysvol, and system state backups. I've always liked physically separating the OS from the applicationdata. Others here like carving up the volume at the OS.Any thoughts, opinions, suggestions? tia, al--Al Lilianstrom CD/CSS/CSI[EMAIL PROTECTED]List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspxList FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspxList info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
