SBS2003 or SBS2008

Up until now I have been allocating my server drives with anywhere from
50-100gb for a C: boot and the remainder to a D: drive. I in turn usually
end up moving my users folders and exchange database to the D: trying to
keep the C: as a pure boot. This does make it easier when I know my "data"
is sitting on a D: partition. The only problem I have run into if I did not
allocate enough space to a C: partition (early years when Dell made them
12gb) and ended up have space issues that were not easy to resolve.



Now enter into it the fact that I am looking at moving from an NTBackup type
of backup solution to more of an imaging based (ShadowProtect) and I'm
starting to think..... why am I doing 2 partitions here? Why not just
create a large C: and put everything there. That way the imaging can image
the entire server (thus making the restore a simple single partition
restore).

My question is..... is this a good approach? What do others do? What are
the pros and cons of doing either approach in the future?

Thanks!

-Richard K

The most common reason, and I think a valid one, for not using the system
partition for user data is that users can willingly or unwillingly completely
fill up the folders they have access to, and if that is the system partition
your server will be stuffed, literally. While quotas have eased some of
this problem, it is still not a good idea, as you don't want user data stopping
either the server or exchange, both of which will grinde to a halt when they
run out of space.

Further, page files are more efficient if not on the system partiton.

And somewhere way down the list, perhaps last: "Because!".


-
Larry
Please post the resolution to your
issue so others may benefit
-
Get Your SBS Health Check at
www.sbsbpa.com

> SBS2003 or SBS2008
>
> Up until now I have been allocating my server drives with anywhere
> from 50-100gb for a C: boot and the remainder to a D: drive. I in
> turn usually end up moving my users folders and exchange database to
> the D: trying to keep the C: as a pure boot. This does make it easier
> when I know my "data" is sitting on a D: partition. The only problem
> I have run into if I did not allocate enough space to a C: partition
> (early years when Dell made them 12gb) and ended up have space issues
> that were not easy to resolve.
>
> Now enter into it the fact that I am looking at moving from an
> NTBackup type of backup solution to more of an imaging based
> (ShadowProtect) and I'm starting to think..... why am I doing 2
> partitions here? Why not just create a large C: and put everything
> there. That way the imaging can image the entire server (thus making
> the restore a simple single partition restore).
>
> My question is..... is this a good approach? What do others do? What
> are the pros and cons of doing either approach in the future?
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Richard K
>

If not using separate spindles (physical disks, or arrays), there isn't much
to be gained other than housekeeping, and, if your d(data) disk fills to
capacity it's not good, but better than filling the system drive ;-).

For me, C: and D: still makes sense.

--
-----------------------------------------------
Les Connor [SBS MVP]

"Richard K" <rkokoski@newsgroup> wrote in message
news:#wfuZbaMKHA.3704@newsgroup

> SBS2003 or SBS2008
>
> Up until now I have been allocating my server drives with anywhere from
> 50-100gb for a C: boot and the remainder to a D: drive. I in turn usually
> end up moving my users folders and exchange database to the D: trying to
> keep the C: as a pure boot. This does make it easier when I know my
> "data" is sitting on a D: partition. The only problem I have run into if
> I did not allocate enough space to a C: partition (early years when Dell
> made them 12gb) and ended up have space issues that were not easy to
> resolve.
>
> Now enter into it the fact that I am looking at moving from an NTBackup
> type of backup solution to more of an imaging based (ShadowProtect) and
> I'm starting to think..... why am I doing 2 partitions here? Why not just
> create a large C: and put everything there. That way the imaging can
> image the entire server (thus making the restore a simple single partition
> restore).
>
> My question is..... is this a good approach? What do others do? What are
> the pros and cons of doing either approach in the future?
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Richard K
>
>

It really depends on the the required server performance, the robustness of
the server's hardware, and your budget . Here's one opinion Richard...

Chapter 2: Planning for the SBS 2008 Deployment
http://www.networkworld.com/subnets/...er.html?page=3


--
Merv Porter [SBS-MVP]
============================

"Richard K" <rkokoski@newsgroup> wrote in message
news:%23wfuZbaMKHA.3704@newsgroup

> SBS2003 or SBS2008
>
> Up until now I have been allocating my server drives with anywhere from
> 50-100gb for a C: boot and the remainder to a D: drive. I in turn usually
> end up moving my users folders and exchange database to the D: trying to
> keep the C: as a pure boot. This does make it easier when I know my
> "data" is sitting on a D: partition. The only problem I have run into if
> I did not allocate enough space to a C: partition (early years when Dell
> made them 12gb) and ended up have space issues that were not easy to
> resolve.
>
> Now enter into it the fact that I am looking at moving from an NTBackup
> type of backup solution to more of an imaging based (ShadowProtect) and
> I'm starting to think..... why am I doing 2 partitions here? Why not just
> create a large C: and put everything there. That way the imaging can
> image the entire server (thus making the restore a simple single partition
> restore).
>
> My question is..... is this a good approach? What do others do? What are
> the pros and cons of doing either approach in the future?
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Richard K
>
>

For me, the partitioning still makes sense even for an image-based backup.
You can configure ShadowProtect to image both partitions, so you can still
backup the entire server. Depending on the situation, this gives you the
flexibility to restore the system partition without affecting the data
partition

--

Chad A. Gross
http://www.msmvps.com/blogs/cgross


"Richard K" <rkokoski@newsgroup> wrote in message
news:#wfuZbaMKHA.3704@newsgroup

> SBS2003 or SBS2008
>
> Up until now I have been allocating my server drives with anywhere from
> 50-100gb for a C: boot and the remainder to a D: drive. I in turn usually
> end up moving my users folders and exchange database to the D: trying to
> keep the C: as a pure boot. This does make it easier when I know my
> "data" is sitting on a D: partition. The only problem I have run into if
> I did not allocate enough space to a C: partition (early years when Dell
> made them 12gb) and ended up have space issues that were not easy to
> resolve.
>
> Now enter into it the fact that I am looking at moving from an NTBackup
> type of backup solution to more of an imaging based (ShadowProtect) and
> I'm starting to think..... why am I doing 2 partitions here? Why not just
> create a large C: and put everything there. That way the imaging can
> image the entire server (thus making the restore a simple single partition
> restore).
>
> My question is..... is this a good approach? What do others do? What are
> the pros and cons of doing either approach in the future?
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Richard K
>
>