"...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: [email protected] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC Configuration From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 3:52 PM To: [email protected] 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: [email protected] 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: [email protected] 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: [email protected] 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: [email protected] 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: [email protected] 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: [email protected] > 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 >
-- ----------------------- Laura E. Hunter Microsoft MVP - Windows Server Networking Author: _Active Directory Consultant's Field Guide_ (http://tinyurl.com/7f8ll) 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
