|
||||||
Hello, We are in the process of planning our upgrade to Windows 2008 (luckily it will be on new servers in a new domain). What are the implications of installing |
Microsoft OS Forum to Usenet Gateway is a gateway to Microsoft Windows operating system newsgroups. If you use Windows XP, Windows Vista or any other Microsoft Operating System then this is the community for you.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Once you register you'll stop seeing this message.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Once you register you'll stop seeing this message.
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
04-14-2008, 04:37 AM
|
#1 | ||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Hello,
We are in the process of planning our upgrade to Windows 2008 (luckily it will be on new servers in a new domain). What are the implications of installing Windows Server 2008 as a domain controller running AD, DHCP, DNS and Group Policy on a SATA/150 on-board controller, RAID-1. I know it may sound like an obvious answer, but I need to justify the added cost of jumpiing up to a hardware SAS setup, so it would be good if I could get answers like: "Do not even consider using SATA/150 because..." Thanks/... |
||
    
|
|
04-14-2008, 09:28 AM
|
#2 | ||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
SATA will be fine. The RAID is the important part.
SAS will be faster and may have longer working life, but not essential, A second DC is highly desirable to avoid the risk of having to recover the whole domain from backup. Anthony, http://www.airdesk.co.uk "Andy Smith" <AndySmith@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:1B919954-5337-4766-941C-FE679E140CEA@microsoft.com... > Hello, > > We are in the process of planning our upgrade to Windows 2008 (luckily it > will be on new servers in a new domain). > > What are the implications of installing Windows Server 2008 as a domain > controller running AD, DHCP, DNS and Group Policy on a SATA/150 on-board > controller, RAID-1. > > I know it may sound like an obvious answer, but I need to justify the > added > cost of jumpiing up to a hardware SAS setup, so it would be good if I > could > get answers like: > > "Do not even consider using SATA/150 because..." > > Thanks/... |
||
|
|
|
04-14-2008, 09:44 AM
|
#3 | ||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Really? I was not expecting that answer!!
Isn't anything database-ish reliant on disk throughput, such as Active Directory, SQL, Exchange etc? If so i'm shocked that SATA/150 would be acceptable in a production environment, especially for the most important servers in a domain! SATA/300 I would be kind of OK with. Also the MTBF is far lower on SATA drives isn't it? Thanks/... "Anthony [MVP]" wrote: > SATA will be fine. The RAID is the important part. > SAS will be faster and may have longer working life, but not essential, > A second DC is highly desirable to avoid the risk of having to recover the > whole domain from backup. > Anthony, > http://www.airdesk.co.uk > > > "Andy Smith" <AndySmith@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:1B919954-5337-4766-941C-FE679E140CEA@microsoft.com... > > Hello, > > > > We are in the process of planning our upgrade to Windows 2008 (luckily it > > will be on new servers in a new domain). > > > > What are the implications of installing Windows Server 2008 as a domain > > controller running AD, DHCP, DNS and Group Policy on a SATA/150 on-board > > controller, RAID-1. > > > > I know it may sound like an obvious answer, but I need to justify the > > added > > cost of jumpiing up to a hardware SAS setup, so it would be good if I > > could > > get answers like: > > > > "Do not even consider using SATA/150 because..." > > > > Thanks/... > > > |
||
|
|
|
04-14-2008, 12:11 PM
|
#4 | ||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
It's just a matter of cost and performance. In terms of DC's (leaving aside
SQL and Exchange) I would say the most important considerations are: 1. Hardware RAID 2. Duplication (more than one DC) Only in very large environments would you be concerned about the performance of the DC. For SQL and Exchange the best thing is not to run them on the DC. So you would need to size a separate box for that. Anthony, http://www.airdesk.co.uk "Andy Smith" <AndySmith@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:5C847F30-A390-4EBD-B5B2-15C9CDBA8C8E@microsoft.com... > Really? I was not expecting that answer!! > > Isn't anything database-ish reliant on disk throughput, such as Active > Directory, SQL, Exchange etc? If so i'm shocked that SATA/150 would be > acceptable in a production environment, especially for the most important > servers in a domain! > > SATA/300 I would be kind of OK with. Also the MTBF is far lower on SATA > drives isn't it? > > Thanks/... > > > "Anthony [MVP]" wrote: > >> SATA will be fine. The RAID is the important part. >> SAS will be faster and may have longer working life, but not essential, >> A second DC is highly desirable to avoid the risk of having to recover >> the >> whole domain from backup. >> Anthony, >> http://www.airdesk.co.uk >> >> >> "Andy Smith" <AndySmith@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> news:1B919954-5337-4766-941C-FE679E140CEA@microsoft.com... >> > Hello, >> > >> > We are in the process of planning our upgrade to Windows 2008 (luckily >> > it >> > will be on new servers in a new domain). >> > >> > What are the implications of installing Windows Server 2008 as a domain >> > controller running AD, DHCP, DNS and Group Policy on a SATA/150 >> > on-board >> > controller, RAID-1. >> > >> > I know it may sound like an obvious answer, but I need to justify the >> > added >> > cost of jumpiing up to a hardware SAS setup, so it would be good if I >> > could >> > get answers like: >> > >> > "Do not even consider using SATA/150 because..." >> > >> > Thanks/... >> >> >> |
||
|
|
|
04-15-2008, 02:53 AM
|
#5 | ||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Ahh that's what I wanted. The fact you have said hardware RAID gives me the
ammo to upgrade to a hardware SAS setup as the original SATA cost was for CPU-assisted software RAID, which is what I don't really want to do. Point 2 will also be done and I would never put anything other than AD, DNS, DHCP on a DC anyway, not in production! Thanks/... "Anthony [MVP]" wrote: > It's just a matter of cost and performance. In terms of DC's (leaving aside > SQL and Exchange) I would say the most important considerations are: > 1. Hardware RAID > 2. Duplication (more than one DC) > Only in very large environments would you be concerned about the performance > of the DC. > For SQL and Exchange the best thing is not to run them on the DC. So you > would need to size a separate box for that. > Anthony, > http://www.airdesk.co.uk > > > > > "Andy Smith" <AndySmith@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:5C847F30-A390-4EBD-B5B2-15C9CDBA8C8E@microsoft.com... > > Really? I was not expecting that answer!! > > > > Isn't anything database-ish reliant on disk throughput, such as Active > > Directory, SQL, Exchange etc? If so i'm shocked that SATA/150 would be > > acceptable in a production environment, especially for the most important > > servers in a domain! > > > > SATA/300 I would be kind of OK with. Also the MTBF is far lower on SATA > > drives isn't it? > > > > Thanks/... > > > > > > "Anthony [MVP]" wrote: > > > >> SATA will be fine. The RAID is the important part. > >> SAS will be faster and may have longer working life, but not essential, > >> A second DC is highly desirable to avoid the risk of having to recover > >> the > >> whole domain from backup. > >> Anthony, > >> http://www.airdesk.co.uk > >> > >> > >> "Andy Smith" <AndySmith@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > >> news:1B919954-5337-4766-941C-FE679E140CEA@microsoft.com... > >> > Hello, > >> > > >> > We are in the process of planning our upgrade to Windows 2008 (luckily > >> > it > >> > will be on new servers in a new domain). > >> > > >> > What are the implications of installing Windows Server 2008 as a domain > >> > controller running AD, DHCP, DNS and Group Policy on a SATA/150 > >> > on-board > >> > controller, RAID-1. > >> > > >> > I know it may sound like an obvious answer, but I need to justify the > >> > added > >> > cost of jumpiing up to a hardware SAS setup, so it would be good if I > >> > could > >> > get answers like: > >> > > >> > "Do not even consider using SATA/150 because..." > >> > > >> > Thanks/... > >> > >> > >> > > > |
||
|
|
|
| Tags |
| 2008, hardware, requirements, windows |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| DEP hardware support requirements and function | JM | Windows XP 64 Bit | 1 | 03-09-2008 05:21 PM |
| Hardware Requirements | Eric | Windows 2003 Server | 2 | 02-03-2008 10:31 AM |
| Hardware Requirements | Terry On Windigo | Windows 2003 Server | 1 | 11-09-2007 06:52 AM |
| Hardware requirements for DOmain Controller | ieraks | Windows 2003 Server | 1 | 10-18-2007 06:22 AM |
| TS hardware requirements for testing application | Markus | Windows NT Server | 2 | 07-30-2007 01:18 PM |
This is a Schwarz Network site.