Home Forums Discussions General Discussion server partitions

Is there an advantage to having more than one partition in a server (2008R2) used in a peer=to=peer network? It has 2T Raid one (long story). I am getting ready to replace a temporary server and am thinking about going from 6.33 to 6.5 at the same time. Am I biting off too much at once? Marlon

There are two main reasons I partition. Partitioning is usually safer and can makes backups and restores simpler.

Usually during a power outage or system fault, you're most likely to lose the partition which has the operating system. So by keeping things on separate partitions, you reduce the chances of data loss. This has helped quite a few people in my experience.

Also, with separate partitions, you can recover specific volumes instead of recovering everything. e.g. Windows Server Backup. E.g. leave the amazing charts partition intact but recover the main OS partition.

I'm afraid I must disagree with Sandeep on this one.

Having on partition makes restore easier - especially bare metal restores where you are recovering everything to a whole new server. This is especially true for Windows Server 2008/Windows Vista and higher.

The only time I partition is when I have, for example, a need to keep the host OS and data separate. So this means I am NOT partitioning one drive into separate partitions, but making partitions out of multiple drives. For example, three RAID 5 arrays would be three partitions. This way I can have maximum performance (RAID 5 has great read times) for whatever it is I'm doing and not having the application and OS compete for one shared resource (one partition). They can both read what they need at the same time. However, I am also prepared for all the backup that goes with that.

For the vast majority of Amazing Charts users, one partition is just fine. Make it a RAID 1 and be done. KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid).

JamesNT

Some good points, but I'll stick to my original position.

I have so seen too many cases where the main OS partition gets knocked out taking all of the data with it. Keeping the data partition separate has worked well for me.

There are downsides to a full volume restore. If your server wasn't booting for whatever reason, you would have to lose that data that was in the main partition. E.g. rolling back a day means you would lose that data for the day you did. If you kept it in a separate volume, there's a good chance that you would have the data and your server would be back to normal. Windows backup lets you recover volumes individually.

And if a potential follow up point is that you could keep multiple backups of the data (AC and shared docs, faxes, whatever) in that event. If that is the case then using partitioning should be easy enough.

It's hard to disagree with either. You basically want to separate data. If you do not have different drives or RAIDs, then partion. So, we are all on the same page here, I like to say "partitions" when talking about separating "one drive" into multiple partitions, but it is still only one drive. When I have what James has, I like to call it three drives. It's semantics, but it tells the listener right away three different drives or RAIDs.

I believe you should always have two or more drives. My server has a RAID1 just for the OS and a RAID5 for data. Now, I partition my data drive but I still have the benefit of a separate drive.

When you have a separate drive for data, this allows you, if necessary, to only back that up, although I do back up the entire server. But, I would say data to system is like 25 to 1. If I had to choose between losing the system or the data, I will go with the data every time. You can always simply reinstall the OS and you're good to go. Sure, you have to do AD over again, and you would have wanted to have SharePoint and Exchange backed up -- my SharePoint and Exchange is on the data drive any way and is backed up nightly to an external drive. AC, as much as I hate it, is on the data drive. And Best Practices would dictate that you have your paging file on a separate drive. Even better on a separate partition on a separate drive.

Your question does beg the question why have a server with a top notch OS in a peer to peer. That's like having a Porsche 911 and driving 35 mph everywhere. Why not just use WIN 7? Any reason not using 2011 or 2012? Just asking.

Just so everyone knows, this isn't a Client/Server vs P2P debate, this is you already have the hardware/software, why not go with the domain.

And, yes, I would like to hear that story.

okay here is the story with the most distant parts abbreviated: About 2 years ago my server with RAID 5 and hot spare had 2 drives go bad at the same time and I lost 4 or 5 days of data due to incompetent first-line technical support. Fast forward to about 2 weeks ago. Friday was a busy but good day, I was planning on updating Amazing Charts to 6.5 Saturday morning. I come into the office, and my server was down. my office closed Friday night around 6 PM, and the off-server backup was to run at 4 AM, I lost Friday's data, and it basically took the whole weekend for me to get the office up and running temporarily for Monday morning. The next week I discovered there had been a small power blip but the server is on a UPS. The server would not boot, the problem I later discovered was the integrated RAID controller and ANOTHER failed hard drive. A mother board would effectively cost more than simply replacing the server, and would not have been available fast enough to keep my office running. I have totally lost faith in Hewlett-Packard. I am currently running on a temporary windows 7 Pro unit quite successfully, and await a new IBM server. I am hopeful that if something should fail with RAID 1, I would be able to pull a good drive and get my data off rapidly. I have been told that 2008R2 is more stable than 2012, I still can have my IT set up as domain, but I have many XP machines in the system which are working well (almost disposable.) I think I will postpone my upgrade to 6.5 until after the new server is put in place rather than trying to do both at once.

Wow! Sounds pretty bad. It seems like you did a rather good job under the circumstances you were dealing with. These are the only things I can offer or have questions about.

First, I agree that NOW HP is a printing company, and I would always use Dell for my servers. I tend to lease them, and there are in the $4,000 range so not too sure how much your motherboard is. You are definitely having a hard time with your hard drives. What brand and type are you using. Also, didn't say how many drives in your RAID5. The more drives you have, the more dangerous it is.

I am not quite sure by the sentence, "I am hopeful that if something should fail with RAID 1, I would be able to pull a good drive and get my data off rapidly." Is that the same as just pulling the bad drive and adding a new drive and letting the mirror rebuild?

Windows 2008R2 is definitely stable, but if you install it, you are already four years behind the curve. I haven't heard anything about 2012 not being stable. Have you considered Hyper-V, etc.

What warranty do you have? Do you use something like 24/7/5 onsite?

Also, not sure what your IT consists of. Is the server being monitored daily. There are Microsoft specialists who completely run the server remotely and do everything and may have caught an impending drive failure.

Just thoughts. Not criticisms. Sounds like you are due for a good stretch.

Good luck.

Bert

The RAID controller failed on my old server, it was out of warranty, and I think you see my relationship with that box from the above post. With RAID 1 mirroring, I am hopeful that if the server board fails, I can pull one of the drives and put it on a different machine and be back up immediately with data. My new server has 5 year 24/7/3 coverage. BTW: no 911, but an old Porsche Boxster at 35 with the top down is still lots of fun on the curves. Marlon

This is why I continually recommend external RAID cards. They are readily available and available for extended period. They also notify you of impending failure. You can even setup the RAID card to verify the arrays and battery weekly.

The 3Ware 9650SE has been sold since 2006 and is still one of the most popular SMB RAID cards. On the lower end HP, Dell, Lenovo servers, the onboard RAID is a joke. But even on the high end ones, it's all tied to the motherboard. They often do not sell them separately and they don't come cheap or fast.

I'll stick to my recommendation of hardware RAID over software/embedded RAID.