Server suggestions? 2

[greif1]

I am looking to install SBS2003 with 22 users (10 of which are active users of Exchange and applications).
Looks like a Proliant DL180 G5, Quad core 2GHZ, 8gb mem, second 750W powers supply would be a good server.

1) Is this enough horsepower?
2) Would 2 500GB non Hot swap SATA drives be enough (Raid 1 config) be OK, or are they too slow?

 

[mofusjtf]

I would drop the 8gb of RAM to 4GB since SBS 2k3 is 32-bit and cannot use more than 4GB. Then get three more drives in your server so you can have a Raid 1 for the OS & a Raid 5 for data. SATA is fine for the server. I typically use the Dell PE 2900 for SBS installs of your size.

 

[ShackDaddy]

If you end up just adding two more large drives for second mirror, that would be fine too. You just want to make sure that you keep your OS and Exchange stuff on separate physical drives to keep things from getting slowed down.

Dave Shackelford
Shackelford Consulting

 

[greif1]

Thanks guys! Would one raid 5 array work with OS and exchange on separate partitions, or does the array not work enough like separate drives?
gr

 

[mofusjtf]

That would work, but you will get a performance hit since partitioning is NOT the same as separate RAID's. I have that setup in a number of installs but the ones that I have separate RAID's for Exchange and OS perform much better.

 

[ShackDaddy]

If I was in a position with four decent-sized drives and a server to build, I'd always choose a pair of mirrors over a RAID5. I've just seen too many issues with running on a single RAID5. People install mail archiving or SQL or some other app on the server and the thing slows to a crawl because write operations take a hit on RAID5 and the same spindles are in play for EVERYTHING: paging, transaction log writing, user file creation, etc. Better to have disk access divided among real disks.

Dave Shackelford
Shackelford Consulting

 

[technome]

Have a number of clients which were running everything from a raid 5, no complaints, but these setups were from years ago, with a small number of wks such as yours (due to cost and raid 1's low performance at that time). Presently I refuse to setup a server with a single raid 5, due to safety and performance concerns; primarily safety, secondly, raid 1 performance in the last few years has improved considerably on raid adapters. On many of my clients, I have a raid 1 for the OS/programs and a raid 5 for the data; I consider this the minimum setup for safety. Raid 1 is inherently safer then raid 5.
You might consider (2) raid 1(s), with a global hotspare or a raid 1 for OS/program installs and a raid 5 for data, either way you get the benefit of multiple spindle sets. You have a very low load system with only 22 wks, so a raid 5 will not hurt performance noticeable if you go that way.


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

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