+ Post New Thread
Results 1 to 7 of 7
Windows Server 2008 R2 Thread, Resizing Disk in Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1 in Technical; Our server is a HP Proliant ML330 G6, with Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1 installed. We currently have 3x240gb harddisks ...
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    South Wales
    Posts
    41
    Thank Post
    9
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    0

    Resizing Disk in Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1

    Our server is a HP Proliant ML330 G6, with Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1 installed. We currently have 3x240gb harddisks installed onto a P410 Smart Array controller (RAID5).

    Our problem is, we have just purchased 3x2tb harddisks with the hope of replacing the current 3x240gb disks. We have run a full backup job (using windows backup) of our server, replaced the 240gb disks with the 2tb disks and restored the backup. But when we check the size of the new disks it is showing only 240gb not the 4tb capacity we were expecting.
    Is there a way we can resize the disks after restoring the backup?

  2. #2

    Dos_Box's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Preston, Lancashire
    Posts
    9,824
    Thank Post
    580
    Thanked 2,161 Times in 986 Posts
    Blog Entries
    23
    Rep Power
    627
    Are they RAID?

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    South Wales
    Posts
    41
    Thank Post
    9
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Thank you for the reply, yes on RAID5

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Bournemouth
    Posts
    280
    Thank Post
    16
    Thanked 74 Times in 64 Posts
    Rep Power
    21
    If the problem is the partitions are simply the wrong size, you should be able to expand it using Disk Management.

    If windows shows the actual disk (not drive/partition) as the 240gb then you will probably need to destroy the array and make a new one from within the raid controller bios and re-restore the backup.

  5. Thanks to ChrisMiles from:

    sidnuts (1st June 2011)

  6. #5

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    South Wales
    Posts
    41
    Thank Post
    9
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Thanks for the reply Chris, posted this on experts exchange too, replies were pretty much the same as yours. Was advised to stay away from RAID5 though and go down the route on RAID10. Think we'll have a go at this over the summer hols. Got inspection in a couple of weeks so will leave things as there are until then.

  7. #6

    SYNACK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    11,038
    Thank Post
    852
    Thanked 2,664 Times in 2,261 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    767
    Pfft, RAID10 is for people with to much money or not enough sense to buy more cache. RAID5 is not that much slower and is much more efficient with disk space. If you are going for extra redundancy go with RAID6. Faster access, buy more cache for the controller and/or faster/more drives.

  8. #7

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Bournemouth
    Posts
    280
    Thank Post
    16
    Thanked 74 Times in 64 Posts
    Rep Power
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by SYNACK View Post
    Pfft, RAID10 is for people with to much money or not enough sense to buy more cache. RAID5 is not that much slower and is much more efficient with disk space. If you are going for extra redundancy go with RAID6. Faster access, buy more cache for the controller and/or faster/more drives.
    Whilst that might be somewhat true for file storage servers in certain environments, with I/O intensive applications, especially those that pretty much exclusively require random disk access such as SQL and Exchange where cache really isn't going to help much, raid 5 is significantly slower and while I have seen exchange servers running on raid 5 before with no noticeable slowdown, this is usually in small networks where the server is normally overspeced anyway.

    The most optimal setup for exchange imo is raid 10 for databases and either a raid 1 or raid 10 depending on your budget for logs. Since the logs are pretty much only accessed sequentially, high random access is not really necessary unless the server is usually under extremely high load and extra write performance is needed.

    Raid-5 doesn't really suffer from any read performance issues, however, when it comes to disk writes, the parity calculations and what is effectively a minimum of 3 physical disk writes that is needed, it leaves a lot to be desired. And with the price of storage these days anyway, it really isn't worth sacrificing the performance to gain some extra storage, especially on an exchange server.

    Anyway, that's just my opinion.

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Windows 7 & 2008 R2 SP1 Release Date
    By mmoseley in forum Windows 7
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 13th March 2011, 10:01 AM
  2. Windows Server 2008 Disk / Partition size?
    By waldronm2000 in forum Windows Server 2008
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 8th December 2010, 03:09 PM
  3. Sharepoint 2007 SP1 and Windows 2008 Server
    By wesleyw in forum Virtual Learning Platforms
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10th August 2009, 11:37 AM
  4. WSUS 3.0 SP1 on Server 2008 SP2
    By OutLawTorn in forum Windows Server 2008
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 29th July 2009, 09:57 AM
  5. Server 2008 SP1
    By FN-GM in forum Windows Server 2008
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 29th April 2008, 09:09 AM

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
  •