Best practice for system partition size

Hi
Can someone please give me a recommended size for a system partition of
Server 2008 64 bit.

I have found this site:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...uirements.aspx
But would like a bit of "real world" advice.

Is there anything like the Vista %systemroot%\winsxs folder bloat that I
need to allow for?

Was thinking of 80 or 100 gig

Many thanks

PeterW

PeterW wrote:
> Hi
> Can someone please give me a recommended size for a system partition
> of Server 2008 64 bit.
>
> I have found this site:
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...uirements.aspx
> But would like a bit of "real world" advice.
>
> Is there anything like the Vista %systemroot%\winsxs folder bloat
> that I need to allow for?
>
> Was thinking of 80 or 100 gig
>
> Many thanks
>
> PeterW

That's going to vary greatly from server core with only a role or two or a
"Full" installtion with many roles, features, sharepoint, exchange, SQL, etc
not to mention the amount of RAM you plan to have.




--
/kj

Hi Thanks for the reply

Have 584Gig of HDD space to play with. 8gig of RAM and it will be run SQL on
a full installation of server 2008 x64 as a member server.

PeterW


"kj [SBS MVP]" <> wrote in message
news:%...
> PeterW wrote:
>> Hi
>> Can someone please give me a recommended size for a system partition
>> of Server 2008 64 bit.
>>
>> I have found this site:
>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...uirements.aspx
>> But would like a bit of "real world" advice.
>>
>> Is there anything like the Vista %systemroot%\winsxs folder bloat
>> that I need to allow for?
>>
>> Was thinking of 80 or 100 gig
>>
>> Many thanks
>>
>> PeterW
>
> That's going to vary greatly from server core with only a role or two or a
> "Full" installtion with many roles, features, sharepoint, exchange, SQL,
> etc not to mention the amount of RAM you plan to have.
>
>
>
>
> --
> /kj
>

I'd entertain the 100-140GB for the OS if I expected to be a long term
server. Initially you'll have lots of extra space you might use for
something else less critical until patches and such begin to fill it up.

PeterW wrote:
> Hi Thanks for the reply
>
> Have 584Gig of HDD space to play with. 8gig of RAM and it will be run
> SQL on a full installation of server 2008 x64 as a member server.
>
> PeterW
>
>
> "kj [SBS MVP]" <> wrote in message
> news:%...
>> PeterW wrote:
>>> Hi
>>> Can someone please give me a recommended size for a system partition
>>> of Server 2008 64 bit.
>>>
>>> I have found this site:
>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...uirements.aspx
>>> But would like a bit of "real world" advice.
>>>
>>> Is there anything like the Vista %systemroot%\winsxs folder bloat
>>> that I need to allow for?
>>>
>>> Was thinking of 80 or 100 gig
>>>
>>> Many thanks
>>>
>>> PeterW
>>
>> That's going to vary greatly from server core with only a role or
>> two or a "Full" installtion with many roles, features, sharepoint,
>> exchange, SQL, etc not to mention the amount of RAM you plan to have.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> /kj

--
/kj

"PeterW" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Hi Thanks for the reply
>
> Have 584Gig of HDD space to play with. 8gig of RAM and it will be run SQL
> on a full installation of server 2008 x64 as a member server.
>
> PeterW

Actually I usually prefer to not break up a physical drive into partitions.
I would rather opt to use the whole drive, or a 'spindle' (logical array) as
a partition and design the hardware for a system drive (array) and data
drive (array). The reason is performance and definitive separation of system
IO calls and app calls to separate spindles. If the same drive, there is no
performance enhancement, rather a hinderance because apps, services and
system IO calls are all on the same spindle. Iwould rather design it to
separate it.

My preference is a system drive using RAID1 (mirrored) with a pair of 72GB
SCSI being sufficient for C: drive, and a RAID5 (stripe with parity) for D:
drive.

The size of D: would be dicated by what type of apps or data it will store.
Of course this can be broken down further with additional arrays depending
on the service or app running, such as Exchange, which in a larger
environment you would want to give it additional arrays for the trans logs,
and an array for each store (databases).

I guess the point is it depends on your requirements. In your scenario, if
you have a single 584GB drive (no array), and will be running a critical
service such as a database, I would rethink my strategy opting first that
the machine will not be used as a domain controller, and second, have a pair
of 72GB for C:, and a RAID5 array for the database. So for example, I would
have ordered the hardware to reflect the following config (using a Dell 2950
for example):

PERC 6i Controller
Pair of 72GB 15k for a RAID1 C: drive giving 72GB of usable space for the
system.
Four 146GB 15k for a RAID5 D: drive providing approx 440 GB of usable space
for the SQL database.

I hope that helps.


--
Ace

This posting is provided "AS-IS" with no warranties or guarantees and
confers no rights.

Ace Fekay, MCSE 2003 & 2000, MCSA 2003 & 2000, MCSA Messaging, MCT
Microsoft Certified Trainer


For urgent issues, you may want to contact Microsoft PSS directly. Please
check http://support.microsoft.com for regional support phone numbers.

"Efficiency is doing things right; effectiveness is doing the right
things." - Peter F. Drucker

I'd agree with you completely on the separation and spindles part Ace. Not
only for OS optimization, but also in this case for SQL. Advice from the SQL
gurus I work with, RAID5 though wouldn't be the preference there though. Of
course that's another religion all together.

Ace Fekay [Microsoft Certified Trainer] wrote:
> "PeterW" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> Hi Thanks for the reply
>>
>> Have 584Gig of HDD space to play with. 8gig of RAM and it will be
>> run SQL on a full installation of server 2008 x64 as a member server.
>>
>> PeterW
>
> Actually I usually prefer to not break up a physical drive into
> partitions. I would rather opt to use the whole drive, or a 'spindle'
> (logical array) as a partition and design the hardware for a system
> drive (array) and data drive (array). The reason is performance and
> definitive separation of system IO calls and app calls to separate
> spindles. If the same drive, there is no performance enhancement,
> rather a hinderance because apps, services and system IO calls are
> all on the same spindle. Iwould rather design it to separate it.
>
> My preference is a system drive using RAID1 (mirrored) with a pair of
> 72GB SCSI being sufficient for C: drive, and a RAID5 (stripe with
> parity) for D: drive.
>
> The size of D: would be dicated by what type of apps or data it will
> store. Of course this can be broken down further with additional
> arrays depending on the service or app running, such as Exchange,
> which in a larger environment you would want to give it additional
> arrays for the trans logs, and an array for each store (databases).
>
> I guess the point is it depends on your requirements. In your
> scenario, if you have a single 584GB drive (no array), and will be
> running a critical service such as a database, I would rethink my
> strategy opting first that the machine will not be used as a domain
> controller, and second, have a pair of 72GB for C:, and a RAID5 array
> for the database. So for example, I would have ordered the hardware
> to reflect the following config (using a Dell 2950 for example):
>
> PERC 6i Controller
> Pair of 72GB 15k for a RAID1 C: drive giving 72GB of usable space for
> the system.
> Four 146GB 15k for a RAID5 D: drive providing approx 440 GB of usable
> space for the SQL database.
>
> I hope that helps.

--
/kj

"kj [SBS MVP]" <> wrote in message
news:%23xEa%...
> I'd agree with you completely on the separation and spindles part Ace. Not
> only for OS optimization, but also in this case for SQL. Advice from the
> SQL gurus I work with, RAID5 though wouldn't be the preference there
> though. Of course that's another religion all together.

I'm not an SQL guru, and if they say RAID5 is not good for SQL, then I would
believe them! :-) If that is the case, the best thing for D: drive in my
design would be a simple RAID1. Would you agree? It would be less expensive
anyway!!

Ace

Ace Fekay [Microsoft Certified Trainer] wrote:
> "kj [SBS MVP]" <> wrote in message
> news:%23xEa%...
>> I'd agree with you completely on the separation and spindles part
>> Ace. Not only for OS optimization, but also in this case for SQL.
>> Advice from the SQL gurus I work with, RAID5 though wouldn't be the
>> preference there though. Of course that's another religion all
>> together.
>
> I'm not an SQL guru, and if they say RAID5 is not good for SQL, then
> I would believe them! :-) If that is the case, the best thing for D:
> drive in my design would be a simple RAID1. Would you agree? It would
> be less expensive anyway!!
>
> Ace

Sometimes it seems they get a bit overzealous trying to squeeze out
everything they can. But then I find their positions sound for serious SQL
work. Separate spindles for logs, tempdb's, main db and of course RAID and
allocation sizes 'tweaked' to their purpose. I'm glad I have some quality
SQL people to help when I need it.

--
/kj

"kj [SBS MVP]" <> wrote in message news:...
>
> Sometimes it seems they get a bit overzealous trying to squeeze out
> everything they can. But then I find their positions sound for serious SQL
> work. Separate spindles for logs, tempdb's, main db and of course RAID and
> allocation sizes 'tweaked' to their purpose. I'm glad I have some quality
> SQL people to help when I need it.
>

I agree. It is always beneficial to have a resource such as your SQL folks!

Cheers!!