Best practice for system partition size

Discussion in 'Server Setup' started by PeterW, Apr 28, 2009.

  1. PeterW

    PeterW Guest

    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/windowsserver2008/en/us/system-requirements.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, Apr 28, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. PeterW

    kj [SBS MVP] Guest

    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 [SBS MVP], Apr 28, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. PeterW

    PeterW Guest

    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
     
    PeterW, Apr 28, 2009
    #3
  4. PeterW

    kj [SBS MVP] Guest

    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.
     
    kj [SBS MVP], Apr 28, 2009
    #4
  5. 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
     
    Ace Fekay [Microsoft Certified Trainer], Apr 28, 2009
    #5
  6. PeterW

    kj [SBS MVP] Guest

    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.
     
    kj [SBS MVP], Apr 28, 2009
    #6
  7. 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], Apr 28, 2009
    #7
  8. PeterW

    kj [SBS MVP] Guest

    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 [SBS MVP], Apr 28, 2009
    #8
  9. I agree. It is always beneficial to have a resource such as your SQL folks!

    Cheers!!
     
    Ace Fekay [Microsoft Certified Trainer], Apr 28, 2009
    #9
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.