Clayton, We have a server devoted to Double Take and I put the free vmware server on it (1.0.4 now) cuz it has gobs of drive space. This server is one big RAID 5 array (with ~5 partitions devoted to DT). It was VERY VERY slow when installing a new guest from scratch. I ended up building the XPSP2 guest on a different box - with a mirrored/two-disk sata3 (promise card) array. After it was built, I moved it to the DT server. It's a little slower on the DT server. I have a nightly shutdown, then cmd line defrag, then startup and this REALLY helps. I just have to use that free space for something!
hth, Devin On Jan 9, 2008 8:35 AM, Clayton Doige <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Thanks all for the responses. Bearing in mind that this configuration is > being designed as a disaster recovery system, where for that main, the only > IO will be incoming Double Take bit level replication, would I be right in > saying that if I partition the system so that there is say 30GB for the base > OS, and then put everything else on one container I will be better off than > my original spec below? > > > > Thanks > > > > Clayton > > > > > From: René de Haas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 09 January 2008 13:01 > > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: VMWare Server Disk Config Questions > > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: VMWare Server Disk Config Questions > > > > > > > > Since all your Virtual Disks are on the same RAID set I don't see how you > avoid problems with heavy disk IO. > > But this is just my thought and I am not a VMware expert by any means. > > > > > From: Joseph L. Casale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 1:49 PM > > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: VMWare Server Disk Config Questions > > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: VMWare Server Disk Config Questions > > > > > > > > My opinion is that if that array degrades, each vm is effected and the > rebuild will take forever if its busy. Also, if one vm sees heavy disc IO, > the whole system suffers. Not a lot of isolation there… > > > > jlc > > > > > > > From: Clayton Doige [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 4:22 AM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: VMWare Server Disk Config Questions > > > > > > > > Dear all, sorry if this is either off topic, or marginally stupid. I am > about to spec out a box that will host 3 virtual machines for DR purposes. I > wanted to run my thoughts past the list to see where the error in my thought > process is, as I am sure there is one (or more) lol. > > > > The physical machine will have a RAID 5 set up with 0.5 TB usable space. I > plan to partition the array as follows: > > > > Container 1, 20 GB, Host OS > > Container 2, 100GB, VM1 (1 virtual disk for OS, 1 virtual disk for > apps/data) > > Container 3, 200 GB, VM2 (1 virtual disk for OS, 1 virtual disk for > apps/data) > > Container 4, 200 GB, VM3 (1 virtual disk for OS, 1 virtual disk for > apps/data) > > > > Is there anything glaringly wrong with this set up? > > > > TIA > > > > Clayton Doige > > Project Management Consultant > > Green IT Solutions Ltd > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 01277844943 > > 07949255062 > > www.greenit.co.uk > > > > **************************************************************************** > Internet communications are not secure and Green IT Solutions Ltd does not > > accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Any views or > > opinions presented within are solely those of the author and do not > > necessarily represent those of Green IT Solutions Ltd. Although Green > > IT Solutions Ltd operates anti-virus programmes, it does not accept > > responsibility for any damage whatsoever that is caused by viruses being > > passed. Telephone communications and replies to this email may be monitored > > by Green IT Solutions Ltd for operational or training purposes. > **************************************************************************** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > *** > The information in this e-mail is confidential and intended solely for the > individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you have received this > e-mail in error please notify the sender by return e-mail delete this e-mail > and refrain from any disclosure or action based on the information. > *** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Devin ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm> ~
