I love standards, there's so many to pick from.
Andrew Fidel
| <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/17/2006 10:16 AM
|
|
"The latter - "we always have OS on a RAID1 set"."
That's a fair argument - if the company has a hardware standard then it
should be adhered to, if feasible. AD is just an app that sits on
hardware as do other apps. Each app doesn't necessarily need a hardware
spec all of its own.
Standards lead to lower TCO so it's always worth striving for. [Simpler
procurement, support, maintenance etc]
Caveat: On the flip side, we all to get the best from our solutions and
the corp standard may not achieve that optimal 'best'. I've never
encountered a large company who'll happily change or allow exceptions re
hardware standards without a very strong argument.
My 2 penneth,
neil
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Williams
Sent: 17 October 2006 14:31
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Seperating Database and logs on seperate disks
> What were the support reasons? Someone whined until they got the OS on
> RAID-1 because that is the way "everyone" says they should do it or
> another popular one is that is the way we "always" do it?
The latter - "we always have OS on a RAID1 set".
I've managed to swing RAID10 on the remaining 4 disks, and x64 and 32GB
RAM.
I can't get them (support folks) to take on support for pure RAID10.
--Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "joe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 1:46 PM
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Seperating Database and logs on seperate disks
> What were the support reasons? Someone whined until they got the OS on
> RAID-1 because that is the way "everyone" says they should do it or
> another
> popular one is that is the way we "always" do it?
>
> One of the issues is that most of the machines folks like to make into
DCs
> just don't have enough disk slots to have multiple spindles for the
DIT if
> you take up 4 for the OS and Logs. If you can get away with
> mirror/mirror/6
> disk 0+1/10... Excellent, especially if x64 with sufficient RAM. If
the
> disk
> counters start to show queuing on the DIT drive greater than what I
> consider
> heavy load (~2x#spindles) though I wouldn't hesistate to tear that
down
> and
> make it into a single 10 disk RAID 0+1/10/5. With x64, as Paul
indicated,
> that generally shouldn't happen though unless you don't have enough
memory
> or possibly you have recently rebooted and are defrosting the cache.
>
> Mostly though, people should be looking at their own perf counters and
> figuring out what they should be doing. Pay especially close attention
to
> Exchange GCs during the "morning rush" and the after lunch "rush",
those
> are
> the two areas that tend to initially start showing pain.
>
> joe
>
>
> --
> O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition -
> http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Williams
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 5:03 AM
> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Seperating Database and logs on seperate
disks
>
> Having discussed this quite a lot recently, I'll give you all an
insight
> into how I wanted to do it and how we are doing it (support reasons
caused
> me to be overridden):
>
> [want] 6 disks in a RAID10 array, with three volumes: OS, DIT & Logs,
> SYSVOL
>
> and Scratch area.
> [reallity] 2 disks in a RAID1 array for OS; 4 disks in a RAID10 array
for
> DIT & Logs, with another volume for SYSVOL and scratch.
>
>
> Scratch contains the IFM directory (temporarily) and perf logs, etc.
>
> I agree with Joe 100% (probably because we have discussed this offline
in
> depth and he has moulded my opinions <g> ). Smaller environments
don't
> need
>
> to worry about it. Big environments need to think about it.
Although, as
> Joe mentions, it's rare you'll need much space for the log files.
Even if
> you provision a couple of hundred thousand users (which takes an hour
or
> two) you don't need much space for logs. Which is why I hate the 3x
RAID1
> idea that is out there. Disks are cheap for sure, but that's still a
> serious waste of two disks where they could be put to use for the DIT,
> which
>
> is being slammed with read requests.
>
> Also remember that in smaller environments, or medium-sized
environments
> that have didicated DCs, a DL360 (or equivalent) which only has room
for
> two
>
> local disks, will happily run as a DC. A couple of the smaller
projects
> I've worked on in the past (~7,000 users) we used just this. Although
in
> some of those we had to use DL380s at some of the branches as they
were
> also
>
> running Exchange! : (
>
> One other thing I'd like to say here, is if you do need to worry about
> separating your disks, then you really should be looking at x64. You
get
> better throughput with x64 on disk and memory access, and you also
have
> the
> ability to get all, or at least a chunk of, your DIT data (as in
objects
> that matter to your and your queries) into RAM. Those disk specs
above
> are
> being implemented with x64 dual-core, dual-proc systems with 32GB of
RAM
> as
> our standard DCs.
>
> (What can I say, I have a reasonable sized DIT ;-)
>
> (or so I'm told...)
>
>
> --Paul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "joe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 5:36 AM
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Seperating Database and logs on seperate
disks
>
>
>>I am surprised there aren't more responses to this.
>>
>> My personal opinion is that a vast majority of installations don't
need
>> to
>> separate off the logs for perf. In fact, I have often recommended
running
>> everything on a single RAID 0+1/10/5 (partition logically if you want
to
>> say
>> separate off the OS and the AD stuff) to get better perf than
splitting
>> logs
>> and OS off onto their own disks. Especially in larger orgs for
Exchange
>> GCs
>> that tried to follow the deployment docs and do mirror, mirror,
mirror or
>> mirror, mirror, 0+1 but didn't have enough disks to get a good 0+1.
>>
>> In every case that I have had to review DCs with questionable disk
>> subsystem
>> perf, the issues are always around the DIT while the disks for the OS
and
>> the Logs are snoozing with IOPS sitting there not being used that
could
>> have
>> saved the DIT from getting sucked into the mud. Rebuilding the disk
>> subsystem with all disks in one of the above configurations has
>> alleviated
>> the issues in every case. Whether RAID 5 or 0+1/10 is faster you will
>> want
>> to test with your own disk subystems (say with IOMETER), it seems to
>> vary.
>
>> I
>> have seen RAID-5 faster and I have seen on different machines 0+1/10
>> faster.
>>
>>
>> A case I am aware of where the logs definitely were good off on their
own
>> and would have seriously impacted perf if they weren't was Eric's DIT
>> experiment where he built a 2TB DIT but he was adding objects at a
very
>> high
>> rate of speed constantly for quite a while so the logs were being
beaten
>> pretty well.
>>
>> joe
>>
>>
>> --
>> O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition -
>> http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of AD
>> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 11:29 AM
>> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
>> Subject: [ActiveDir] Seperating Database and logs on seperate disks
>>
>> Is there any other reason other then performance to have the Active
>> Directory log files and database on separate disks?
>>
>> Opinions are welcome.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Yves
>> 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
>
> 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
PLEASE READ: The information contained in this email is confidential and
intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you are not an intended
recipient of this email please notify the sender immediately and delete your
copy from your system. You must not copy, distribute or take any further
action in reliance on it. Email is not a secure method of communication and
Nomura International plc ('NIplc') will not, to the extent permitted by law,
accept responsibility or liability for (a) the accuracy or completeness of,
or (b) the presence of any virus, worm or similar malicious or disabling
code in, this message or any attachment(s) to it. If verification of this
email is sought then please request a hard copy. Unless otherwise stated
this email: (1) is not, and should not be treated or relied upon as,
investment research; (2) contains views or opinions that are solely those of
the author and do not necessarily represent those of NIplc; (3) is intended
for informational purposes only and is not a recommendation, solicitation or
offer to buy or sell securities or related financial instruments. NIplc
does not provide investment services to private customers. Authorised and
regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Registered in England
no. 1550505 VAT No. 447 2492 35. Registered Office: 1 St Martin's-le-Grand,
London, EC1A 4NP. A member of the Nomura group of companies.
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
