+ Post New Thread
Results 1 to 11 of 11
Hardware Thread, SERVER 2008 R2 install on RAID5 or RAID1 in Technical; Hi guys, Im replacing some old servers (Yay). With the current setup we have a single RAID5 to which two ...
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Atherton
    Posts
    112
    Thank Post
    13
    Thanked 6 Times in 1 Post
    Rep Power
    8

    SERVER 2008 R2 install on RAID5 or RAID1

    Hi guys,

    Im replacing some old servers (Yay). With the current setup we have a single RAID5 to which two virtual discs are setup. C: & D:

    Im told that its better to have two RAIDS. RAID1 C: & RAID5 D: what do you guys have, and what are the benifits?

    thx

  2. #2

    glennda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    7,817
    Thank Post
    272
    Thanked 1,138 Times in 1,034 Posts
    Rep Power
    350
    Personally I setup OS on 2 x 72gb drives raid 1 and then data drives in raid 5 - seperates os and data

  3. #3
    soveryapt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Lancashire
    Posts
    2,405
    Thank Post
    648
    Thanked 277 Times in 244 Posts
    Rep Power
    78
    Evening

    I have the 2 RAID setup as you have described. Basically, the benefits are that 2008R2 can be quite hungry on it's disk writes for the system, so to be safe that you're data access is minimally effected, you split it off onto another physical drive (well RAID).

    I think the reason for the 2 different RAID standards is just simply to ensure you don't use up all the space on the server and it gives you a bit of additional room to play with (for instance, I have another RAID5 set with additional storage space I use for original photos etc (so when we take a load of photos at 18mp, I can size them sensibly for the general use and then store the full files (often RAW if I'm doing it) on the extra storage, again without effecting the general network storage).

    But the basic thing is to keep the drives physically separated .. or at least that is my understanding of it and how I had it explained to me when I checked for confirmation with my supplier ..

  4. #4

    dhicks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Knightsbridge
    Posts
    5,656
    Thank Post
    1,260
    Thanked 783 Times in 680 Posts
    Rep Power
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by jahilton2002 View Post
    Im told that its better to have two RAIDS. RAID1 C: & RAID5 D:
    A drive for the OS and a drive for data? Yes, although I'd go for RAID 6, which uses two disks for parity data rather than RAID 5's one. With today's larger, 2TB+ haddrives the chances of you having a read error somewhere on a disk are pretty good, and by the time you have 6 or 8 of them in an array you can bet you won't be able to read through all that data without a read error somewhere, so if a whole disk fail and you need to rebuild an array it's best to have two parity disks available. Alternativly, I understand Sun's ZFS has facilities for data redundancy, as does the succesor to NTFS due out with Windows 8 and as do various Linux file systems.

    If you're buying a general-purpose server you'll want to run it as a virtual machine host, hosting several virtual machines. In that case, most of the main operating system probably gets loaded in to RAM on boot and never swaps out, the OS disk is probably just used to write logs. XenServer, for instance, insists on limiting itself to a 4GB OS partition, at least half of which is used by logs, so the main OS could probably be held in working memory or a RAM disk. If you have limited space in your server, or you just want to squeeze your monies-worth out of the harddrives you're putting in there, you could boot the OS off a USB stick or memory card and use all the RAID space for large harddrives.

  5. #5

    plexer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    13,258
    Thank Post
    671
    Thanked 1,644 Times in 1,466 Posts
    Rep Power
    424
    Another +1 for RAID6

    Ben

  6. #6

    sparkeh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    6,814
    Thank Post
    1,298
    Thanked 1,662 Times in 1,115 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22
    Rep Power
    508
    RAID 6 with a hot spare

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Atherton
    Posts
    112
    Thank Post
    13
    Thanked 6 Times in 1 Post
    Rep Power
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by sparkeh View Post
    RAID 6 with a hot spare
    i only have 6 bays!! LOL one server is 6x600gb sas and the other 6x300gb sas.

    so would raid1 (2x600) and raid6 (4x600) without a hotspare be good? at the mo we have raid5 (6x174gb) inc a hotspare. the raid6 added parity would remove the need to have a hotspare would it not?

  8. #8

    Michael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    9,262
    Thank Post
    242
    Thanked 1,572 Times in 1,252 Posts
    Rep Power
    340
    I've done both - RAID5, 2 partitions, but RAID1 OS and RAID5 data is my preferred choice.

    It's all about failure rate. I'd rather have two separate RAID arrays rather than a single RAID array as re-installing the OS and restoring data (in a worse case scenario) it's going to create a lot of work.

  9. #9


    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    51.403651, -0.515458
    Posts
    9,075
    Thank Post
    232
    Thanked 2,721 Times in 2,008 Posts
    Rep Power
    797
    Quote Originally Posted by jahilton2002 View Post
    one server is 6x600GB SAS and the other 6x300GB SAS.
    Enterprise-class SAS drives will generally be more reliable than standard SATA drives.

    To give you an example, Seagate's Cheetah 15K.7 and Savvio 15K.3 SAS drives both have a non-recoverable read error rate of 10^16 bits, which means 1 sector in every 1.11022302 petabytes will be unreadable.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    872
    Thank Post
    90
    Thanked 165 Times in 140 Posts
    Rep Power
    49
    Agree with RAID 1 for OS; as far as the other HDDs for DATA there are numerous options (and only you can decide what is best for you and its application).

    Possible Configuration:

    Server 1:
    OS
    RAID 1 (2x 600Gb) = 600GB

    DATA
    RAID 5 (No Spare) - 1.8TB (Only 1 HDD can fail and still continue) or
    RAID 5 (+1 Spare) - 1.2TB (Only 1 HDD can fail, with 1 spare, and continue) or
    RAID 6 (min 4 HDDs req) - 1.2TB (up to 2 HDDs can fail and still continue)

    Server 2:
    OS
    RAID 1 (2x 300Gb) = 300GB

    DATA
    RAID 5 (No Spare) - 900GB (Only 1 HDD can fail and still continue) or
    RAID 5 (+1 Spare) - 600GB (Only 1 HDD can fail, with 1 spare, and continue) or
    RAID 6 (min 4 HDDs req) - 600GB (up to 2 HDDs can fail and still continue)

    RAID 6 is slower (up to 50%) than RAID 5 for write operations due to the additional Parity strip but does have the unique redundancy level where by (any) 2 drives can fail and the data is still intact.
    Even the likes of RAID 10 (or might be 0+1!) can cope with 2 (specific) HDDs failing but it cannot be any 2 HDDs.

    It all depends on balance of performance, redundancy and overall storage space required.
    For example using 2x 600GB RAID 1 for OS (600GB) may be considered overkill (and wasted resources).

    Alternative configurations may be:

    Server 1:
    OS
    RAID 1 (2x 300GB) = 300GB

    DATA
    RAID 5 (No Spare) - 1.8TB (Only 1 HDD can fail and still continue) or
    RAID 5 (1 Spare) - 1.2TB (Only 1 HDD can fail, with 1 spare, and continue) or
    RAID 6 (req min 4) - 1.2TB (up to 2 HDDs can fail and still continue)

    Server 2:
    OS
    RAID 1 (2x 300GB) = 300GB

    DATA
    RAID 1 (2x 300GB) - 300GB (Fast Read/Write - Only 1 HDD can fail) and
    RAID 1 (2x 600GB) - 600GB (Fast Read/Write - Only 1 HDD can fail)

  11. Thanks to MYK-IT from:

    Edwardjr (29th March 2012)

  12. #11

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Atherton
    Posts
    112
    Thank Post
    13
    Thanked 6 Times in 1 Post
    Rep Power
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by MYK-IT View Post
    Agree with RAID 1 for OS
    that post was epic!! thx for taking the time to respond like that! that helps me heap loads!

    thx very much

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread

Similar Threads

  1. New install on Server 2008 R2
    By krobin in forum Home Access Plus+
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 26th August 2011, 04:47 PM
  2. Server 2008 R2 Install Problem on HP ProLiant DL360 G5
    By FN-GM in forum Windows Server 2008 R2
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 31st May 2011, 12:03 AM
  3. Fresh Server 2008 R2 install for our school. Advice please
    By brickwall53 in forum Windows Server 2008 R2
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 19th May 2011, 02:13 PM
  4. Can i run Server 2008 R2 64bit on x86 server
    By duxbuz in forum Hardware
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 23rd February 2010, 11:34 PM
  5. Mac clients on Server 2008 R2 domain
    By TheCrust in forum Mac
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 29th September 2009, 01:44 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •