AD Plan

[nevets2001uk]

We will shortly be moving from Novell 5.1 to AD 2003. We are looking at creating the new AD structure seperately to the Novell side and taking the chance to recreate the user / group structures and file server folder structure. We only have 110 users so this isn't too hard a job.

We will be having two servers for some redundancy and we're trying to make sure we spec it out as best as possible.

AD Server 1 will have twin processors, 2Gb memory and the 2nd server will have a single processor and 1Gb memory and be used to replicate the AD data to.

On the first server which will be a fileserver as well as AD DC we're planning to have RAID1 36Gb disks for the OS and 4 x 300Gb RAID5 disks for the data.

Head office are suggesting 146Gb mirrored on the 2nd server.

Does this all sound reasonably sensible at the moment?


Steve G (MCP)

 

[58sniper]

I always use dual processors and min. 2GB RAM for any server I install. MINIMUM.

Drive sizes are a little different, as we'd need to know the amount of data you'll have on each. You don't mention if any other roles will be on the servers. You just mention file. What about print? What about DHCP? What about email? Database apps? Backup software? AV?

Pat Richard, MCSE MCSA:Messaging CNA
Microsoft Exchange MVP
Want to know how email works? Read for yourself -

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2821.txt

 

[nevets2001uk]

Sorry yes I forgot to mention all it's rolls. I was planning on using the 2nd server which is purely a backup system to host the DNS and DHCP services (as this will lower the load on the AD server a little.

We may well be using it as a print server as well. Email is hosted on a seperate Exchange server as are our SQL databases. We will be using ArcServer 11.5 for backup (company agreement) and Mcafee as the virus protection.

We've calculated the disks based on the maximum long term expectation for data. Currently we are using less than 400Gb so have specked 4 x 300Gb RAID 5 to give us 900Gb.


Steve G (MCP)

 

[58sniper]

Dunno how big the drive cages are on the servers you're looking at, but 8x146GB would likely give you better performance. 64bit processors is certainly something to explore.

If both servers will be DCs, then make both of them GCs, and put DNS on both as well.

If server B is going to be a "backup" of server A, it needs to be just as beefy as A. And, in an AD world, there really isn't a "primary" and "backup". Users can (and will) authenticate to either.

Pat Richard, MCSE MCSA:Messaging CNA
Microsoft Exchange MVP
Want to know how email works? Read for yourself -

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2821.txt

 

[nevets2001uk]

OK thanks. I will make the recommendation to look at a higer spec for the 2nd server.

If we were to use 8x146Gb disks would they be on a single RAID5 array?

Also do you see any problem with creating the users from scratch as opposed to migrating from Netware if we plan on restrcturing the fileserver folder structure and creating entirely new groups etc? I know it's more work but it seems a lot cleaner and a good chance to get things into better shape.


Steve G (MCP)

 

[SDPT]

if you have the money, go raid 51

_________________________________
IBM CP, MCP, (Cientist, partime)

http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/2761403060074648262gLrhkV?vhost=good-times

 

[58sniper]

Yes - same array. More drives (spindles) means the workload is spread out more. Better performance that way.

110 users is a fair amount, considering you'll be manually touching every workstation. Proper planning will make it possible to automate nearly everything, though. But the planning alone will take some time.

Remember this - robocopy is your friend.

Pat Richard, MCSE MCSA:Messaging CNA
Microsoft Exchange MVP
Want to know how email works? Read for yourself -

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2821.txt

 

[nevets2001uk]

I'm affraid the budget won't stretch to RAID 5+1. I've made the disk recommendation and am trying to find out how we will fit into the parent company structure. We are having our own forest as our data must be fully autonomous and not visible by the other comapanys.

Thanks for all the advice Sniper. I've done this stuff in theory but in practice it tends to pan out quite differently.


Steve G (MCP)

 

[58sniper]

We are having our own forest as our data must be fully autonomous and not visible by the other comapanys.

Certainly not, I hope, the only reason you're wanting your own forest. NTFS permissions and share rights can certainly keep things from prying eyes.

Pat Richard, MCSE MCSA:Messaging CNA
Microsoft Exchange MVP
Want to know how email works? Read for yourself -

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2821.txt