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 facilities etc?
For a
low level use, I was right there with you until you said file and print my
friend. ;)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 11:17 PM
To: [email protected]
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 definition in 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 facilities etc?
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
curious what some of the thinking 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: [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
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
