+1 On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 5:12 AM, Benjamin Zachary - Lists <[email protected] > wrote:
> Hi Greg, > > > > I think running that high performance with that limited users probably > won't make any real difference as far as the client would be able to see. > Maybe if there is heavy SQL or something on there you could look at RAID10 > for the i/o increase. However, in your description below I would look at > RAID5/6. ESXi runs about 90% through ram so you don't really see a lot of > disk i/o from that per se. > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Monday, February 02, 2009 10:47 PM > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* Vmware Disk Ideas > > > > Just wondering what everyone's idea would be on a VMWARE ESXi that will run > 2 VM's, SBS 2003 and SBS 2008 for some time to migrate. > > > > 6 x 146 GIG SAS 15K drives running either Raid 6 or Raid 10. Assuming the > storage loss was fine to Raid 10, how much performance are we going to see > with Raid 10 vs going with Raid 6 and getting the two drive failure > protection and the write hit. > > > > Small office about 20 users, Peachtree, SMB size email. Nothing insane > (Larger mailboxes 1.5GB to 2.5GB) and then just the normal SBS Exchange and > SQL servers for Sharepoint services, about 100+ gig in files now going to > grow at least another 75 to 100 gig over 2 years. > > > > I think either way will work well, but I just don't have that much > experience with Raid 6 other than Netapp and was curious? > > > > Thanks > > > Greg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
