+ 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
    109
    Thank Post
    13
    Thanked 6 Times in 1 Post
    Rep Power
    7

    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
    7,714
    Thank Post
    269
    Thanked 1,116 Times in 1,012 Posts
    Rep Power
    345
    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
    2,356
    Thank Post
    617
    Thanked 274 Times in 241 Posts
    Rep Power
    77
    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
    5,493
    Thank Post
    1,184
    Thanked 745 Times in 647 Posts
    Rep Power
    228
    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
    12,964
    Thank Post
    586
    Thanked 1,494 Times in 1,340 Posts
    Rep Power
    397
    Another +1 for RAID6

    Ben

  6. #6

    sparkeh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    6,258
    Thank Post
    1,138
    Thanked 1,463 Times in 980 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22
    Rep Power
    457
    RAID 6 with a hot spare

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Atherton
    Posts
    109
    Thank Post
    13
    Thanked 6 Times in 1 Post
    Rep Power
    7
    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
    8,941
    Thank Post
    232
    Thanked 1,510 Times in 1,206 Posts
    Rep Power
    328
    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
    51.405546, -0.510212
    Posts
    8,110
    Thank Post
    203
    Thanked 2,385 Times in 1,765 Posts
    Rep Power
    703
    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
    847
    Thank Post
    86
    Thanked 160 Times in 135 Posts
    Rep Power
    47
    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
    109
    Thank Post
    13
    Thanked 6 Times in 1 Post
    Rep Power
    7
    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
  •