|
I always do 12GB for C and the rest for D for ‘Data’.
I can format C and not worry about the Data. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Timothy Foster Thanks,
Brian. That makes sense. So
if I have a 4 disk array on a single backplane, and given that I want the
benefits of RAID 5, is there any argument for configuring more than one
partition on the array? I realize that this is potentially too much
of an open-ended question, but I'm curious :-). The basic premise is that
this server would be a workhorse domain member/file server. Would one
partition - C: - combined with carefully configured share and NTFS permissions
provide adequate security? Or is it better to put the OS on C: and the shares
on D: ? Or does the benefit of partitions lie somewhere else - for
example, if I wanted to wipe C: and reinstall the OS without touching D:
? (I'm not sure if I like this idea, but as I mentioned, I'm curious...). Thanks, Tim From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Desmond Tim- It doesn’t really matter. The RAID controller has no idea
about the partition table. It just presents a LUN to the OS and the OS writes
to it. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Timothy Foster Using a
RAID controller's configuration utility I can build and initialize a RAID 5
container. When installing the OS, I can, if I choose, create a
partition. Is this a good or bad idea? In other words, if I
partition RAID 5 container during the OS install will it make any difference if
I ever need to replace a drive and rebuild the array? Will the partition
table be recognized during the rebuild? Thanks for
your input. Tim |
- RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice Brian Desmond
- Re: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice Carlos Magalhaes
