Actually I only performed that process on a small subset of the systems. For all the rest, I extended the c: drive on my Citrix server template and then just cloned new servers for all the rest of the farm. Much quicker and more efficient :-)
On 8 June 2010 14:27, David Mazzaccaro <[email protected]>wrote: > James - > I assume C: is a RAID of some sort? > What did you use to increase the C: partition? > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* James Rankin [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 08, 2010 9:25 AM > > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* Re: partition size for 2008 (was: Low disk space) > > We had 20GB originally for our Windows 2003 Citrix servers and we had to > shunt them all to 28GB recently. Not that they were actually running out of > space - just they were down to about 2GB and this was making them all alert > through Ops Manager. However we do have some nasty apps that like to write > to the c: drive, some idiot admins with enormous profiles, lots of old > hotfix uninstallers and the like. > > > On 8 June 2010 13:53, Bob Hartung <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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/> ~ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > "On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put into > the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able > rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such > a question." > > > > > > > . > > > > > > -- "On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
