That's a good point, but there is more flexibility where virtualization is
concerned.  :)

For now, I balance things by using 50GB for C:, and storing as much as
possible on other drives.   It's easy enough to change the drive size of a
virtual system, so that's one less concern for gambling wrong in the future.

As for physical, I try to go with 80GB (SATA) or 72GB (SAS) mirrors for the
C: drive, so even less worries there.

I think it's time that I updated this:
http://kb.ultratech-llc.com/?File=ServerSpecs.TXT  (5 years is a loooong
time)

-ASB: http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker


On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 11:02 PM, Ken Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote:

> People said the same thing about 20GB C: partitions under Win2k3. And then
> after 5-6 years, after installing apps, installing updates, various log
> files, you end up in a situation where you start to run out of space.
>
> I've already got DCs here built with 36GB C: partitions with Win2k8 that
> are running out of space. Pagefile, expanded event logs, expanding NTDS,
> various applications etc, just start to consume space. In a large
> enterprise, we don't have the luxury of someone spending 24 hours to look at
> files and work out what to delete. So, it's just better to provision more
> space in the first place. Given that storage is usually < $1/GB, I don't
> consider paying an extra $100 or so per DC to have an extra few years of
> piece-of-mind. I don't know what John earns, but given the amount of time
> that's been spent on the issue, I'd be questioning the ROI on this
> endeavour.
>
> Cheers
> Ken
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Scott [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, 8 June 2010 10:41 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: C: partition size for 2008 (was: Low disk space)
>
> On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 10:24 PM, Ken Schaefer <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > Even 20GB is too small. Aim for 40-50GB. If you are even thinking of
> > upgrading to Win2k8 then 72GB would be my minimum
>
>  72 GB for the C: partition....
>
>  I haven't really played with 2008 yet.  What in %DEITY%'s name is on there
> that needs that much space?  :)
>
>  I was thinking of going with 2008 R2 Enterprise, in a host plus four VM
> config, for our next server upgrade cycle.  Going with your recommendation,
> I can expect to have to dedicate 360 gigabytes of disk just to C:
> partitions.
>
>  I think we have around 300 GB of corporate data total, not including
> Exchange!  :-)
>
>
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

Reply via email to