Server 2008 New Server 3

[timmoat]

Hi all,

I've had some assistance from the guys over in the Exchange 2007 forum for sorting my Exchange server - now its time for the domain controller/file server.

Below is the specification for my exchange server:

-PE 2950 III Quad Core Xeon E5405 (2.0GHz, 2x6MB, 1333MHz FSB)
-PE2950 III Additional Quad-Core Xeon E5405 (2.0GHz, 2x6MB, 1333MHz FSB)
-Riser with PCI Express Support (2x PCIe x8 slots; 1x PCIe x4 slot)
-16GB (8x2GB Dual Rank DIMMs) 667MHz FBD
-3.5 inch 1.44MB Floppy Drive
-73GB SAS 15k 2.5" HD x4
-146GB SAS 10k 2.5" HD x4
-Windows Server 2008, Standard x64 Edition English, Includes 5 CALs

In terms of file storage we have around 100gig at present and increase this by around 500meg per week.

In a small 65 user environment the domain controller will be assuming the roles of:

Domain Controller
Global Catalog
DHCP
DNS
File Server
Print Server
Group Policy
WSUS (not sure if this is a good idea on this server?)

Would the above server specification be advisable for the domain controller also? Or is it overkill?

Is it worth keeping AD logs etc on seperate RAID1 disks? If not i'd prefer another mirror for data. I recall that WSUS uses up an awful lot of space.

Thinking:

Operating System RAID1 73gig
Active Directory Logs etc RAID1 73gig or Data 300gig RAID1
Data RAID1 300gig

Is it best to have data on Raid1 or would Raid10 be more adviseable?

Would be really appreciative of any advice on this.

Cheers

 

[pagy]

Might be a bit overkill for 65 users but if it's what you can afford then go for it :->. You only mention 1 DC in your plan, 2 domain controllers is much better from a redundancy point of view.

I would not put WSUS on a DC

Yeah, seperate RAID for AD log files is a good idea.. 72 gig is fine for this.

Paul
MCSE 2003
MCSA 2003
MCITP Enterprise Administrator

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions?
Scott Adams

 

[timmoat]

You only mention 1 DC in your plan, 2 domain controllers is much better from a redundancy point of view.

I am planning on having a PowerEdge R200 1U server as another domain controller, global catalog, dns, dhcp server.

Specs for this are greatly reduced:

x2 SATA 500gig 7.2k RAID1
4gig RAM
Server 2008 Standard

Would it be best to have WSUS on this server instead? Its still going to be a domain controller which may be an issue.

Might be a bit overkill for 65 users but if it's what you can afford then go for it

Which aspects in your opinion could I cut back on? Budgetwise i'm close to the border with this all!

Thanks!

 

[pagy]

Normally I'm big on having as much RAM as possible but in this case I think you could scale back on the RAM. AD will never use that amount of RAM with 65 users, I know you have other things going on the DC but I think you could half that 16 gig and save some cash.


If you have to have WSUS on a DC then yes I would put it on your second DC you mention. My preference would be to get another box for it though if you can. Or maybe virtualize it??, but then again I would not recommend running a virtual server on a DC either....


Paul
MCSE 2003
MCSA 2003
MCITP Enterprise Administrator

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions?
Scott Adams

 

[timmoat]

Budgetwise I can only stretch to this other server although down the line I may be able to shift it off.

With regards the file server I would only be able to fit in RAID1 for file storage. Would this be fine in this scenario? I want it to be scable but there is a fine line between that and overkill!

I'm thinking:

OS RAID1 15k SAS 72gig
LOGS RAID1 15K SAS 72gig
DATA RAID1 15K SAS 300gig

Or would it be better to leave AD logs on the OS drives and have 4 data drives in RAID5 or RAID10?

Really appreciate your advice!

 

[58sniper]

Dual quad cores and 16GB of RAM is way overkill for a DC, IMNSHO. Even for Exchange, dual quads is overkill for your environment.

Generally, I use 2xdual core with 4GB of RAM for a DC that's going to do what you're asking of it.

Pat Richard MVP
Plan for performance, and capacity takes care of itself. Plan for capacity, and suffer poor performance.

http://www.ucblogs.net/blogs/exchange/

 

[technome]

For 65 users, AD will place just about nill overhead on your server; the only time it could stress the server if everyone in the office logs in at exactly 9 am. The print service will place more stress on the server than AD (which is nothing to worry about)
A raid 1 for the OS would suffice, I would skip the separate r1 for the logs, unless you plan to run SQL.
If you want more performance I would be tempted to create a raid 10 for the OS/programs and a raid 1 for data. Raid 10 will give you about double the read speed. Servers are generally 80%reads 20% writes, the raid 1 will be fine for the data.

Agree with Paul, I would not place WSUS on a DC as it does little work and is a resource/complexity pig other than the space it uses... would be better off on a lowly machine.

Two processors might be over kill, I would be tempted to go 1 quad processor at 3.0Ghz. Have a 2900III 3.0Ghz (64 bit 2008) FSMO running SQL/Great Plains plus another resident DB program and more services then your proposal, and it smokes with 12 Meg ram, (raid 1 for the OS, 4 drive raid 5 for data (all 15k drives))

If your increasing at 25 Gig a year, likely it will be double that in reality over the long haul.. the 300 Gig drives for the data raid sound better.


........................................
Chernobyl disaster..a must see pictorial

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/default.htm

 

[timmoat]

Thanks to everyone for all the feedback.

This is the 1st time i've got involved in this side of things if you haven't guessed! There is 1 day of consultancy to go over final plans etc but I want to use as little as possible due to budget issues!

Based on the advice here i've dropped the RAM down by half, and removed a processor.

I fear I may have to place WSUS on the backup domain controller just because I don't have any other servers or room in the budget. Can always be removed at a later date I guess.


Now its just a question of whether I should RAID10 the Operating System with RAID 1 for the Data, or RAID1 the operating system and RAID10 the data.

The data drive will hold user files and also the files from the document management system. Work with lawyers so they are always working on documents! Based on that is it still more beneficial to RAID10 the OS?

Huge thanks to you three for taking the time to help me out here.

 

[58sniper]

RAID 1 the OS, RAID 1+0 the data.

Pat Richard MVP
Plan for performance, and capacity takes care of itself. Plan for capacity, and suffer poor performance.

http://www.ucblogs.net/blogs/exchange/

 

[ArizonaGeek]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression IIS wouldn't install on a DC, which is needed for WSUS.

Cheers
Rob

The answer is always "PEBKAC!

 

[timmoat]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression IIS wouldn't install on a DC, which is needed for WSUS.

You can install exchange 2007 on a domain controller and this requires IIS does it not? (I know its not a good idea!)

Hmmm - I better double check this!

 

[technome]

Have IIS installed for WSUS on a number of non FSMO DCs

Ran into an issue installing IIs on 2008....
On a lab setup, I could not get IIS installed on a DC, after DcPromo. The MS article which I could not find easily, advised to install it previous to promoting.

........................................
Chernobyl disaster..a must see pictorial

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/default.htm

 

[dennydd]

I would install WSUS on Server 2008 as a VM.