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!".
Please post the resolution to your
issue so others may benefit
Get Your SBS Health Check at
> 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?
> -Richard K