I'm curious, what's so painful about managing ESX or ESXi? On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Brian Desmond <[email protected]>wrote:
> *6 drives is a lot of IOPS. I'd be inclined to say you'll be just fine > given the workload of a typical SBS instance. Just a thought but why not go > with HyperV? It's a lot more painless to manage especially when discussing > the skillset of a typical SBS shop. * > > * * > > *Thanks,* > > *Brian Desmond* > > *[email protected]* > > * * > > *c - 312.731.3132* > > * * > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 03, 2009 10:30 AM > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* RE: Vmware Disk Ideas > > > > Thanks Ben and Don, > > > > Just wanted to make sure that the performance would be acceptable with 6 > drives for Raid6. I was trying to get 8 drives but they wouldn't go for it. > > > > Thanks again > > > Greg > > > > *From:* Don Ely [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 03, 2009 11:21 AM > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* Re: Vmware Disk Ideas > > > > +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/> ~
