Here's my take on the server C: drive. I want it to be as small as possible so that in the event of catastrophe it's relatively quick to restore. 20 GB of space should be more than adequate for the typical Win2K3 server as long as you make a point of not installing apps on it. While there are apps that are hard-coded to install on the C: drive, the vast majority give you the option to change the default install location.
Beyond that, the suggestions by others to change the location of the pagefile and temp directories are helpful but I find apps, particularly those that also install SQL Express are the ones that cause the most space issues. If there's no benefit in installing something to the C: drive, don't. ---------------------- Bob Hartung Wisco Industries, Inc. 736 Janesville St. Oregon, WI 53575 Tel: (608) 835-3106 x215 Fax: (608) 835-7399 e-mail: bhartung(at)wiscoind.com _____ From: [email protected] To: NT System Admin Issues [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tue, 08 Jun 2010 05:41:43 -0500 Subject: Re: partition size for 2008 (was: Low disk space) I agree with Ken on this one and have painfully experienced that whole "20 GB is enough for C:" scenario. I'm building all my 2008 servers with a minimum of 100 GB for the OS partition. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Schaefer" <[email protected]> To: "NT System Admin Issues" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 7, 2010 11:02:31 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: RE: partition size for 2008 (was: Low disk space) 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/> ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
