Drive Space Allocation

[BrentfromZulu]

Hello all.

Here is our current Server

Windows Server 2012 Standard
Intel Xeon E5-2407 @ 2.2GHz
16GB Ram
2x 2TB HDD in Raid 1

The disk currently looks like this:

C: = 39.9 GB
D: = 1.32 TB

I know the OS Disk is too small, how large should I stretch it out? Up to 80 or 100 GB, or just do 1 large volume? Thanks!

 

[AndyM]

Depends... What services and roles are you going to install on the server?

As it stands per your description, with no services or roles, you're fine

Andy

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

Easy and cheap upgrade that will give you tremendous performance boost...
Purchase another pair of drives, create a second RAID volume.
Move your D partition to that.
Now stretch your C partition to utilize...I guess the rest of your first RAID volume. Overkill in size...yes. But splitting your system volume and data volume to be on different spindles is a big performance boost. Separate spindles. MUCH better concurrent drive hit performance.

Having system and data partitions on the same RAID volume...is sharing the same spindle. You bump into the limits that just 1x spindle can deal with for concurrent drive hits. Poor performance.

Anyways for Windows 8 server..I mean...Server 12...I do 146 gig pairs minimum now.

 

[BrentfromZulu]

Depends... What services and roles are you going to install on the server?

As it stands per your description, with no services or roles, you're fine

Andy

To be honest, the server isn't doing much. It is for now basically a file server. I haven't set up Group Policies on it yet, not running DHCP or DNS yet, and the company size as of now is about 8 employees.

 

[NYJimbo]

Depends... What services and roles are you going to install on the server?

As it stands per your description, with no services or roles, you're fine

Andy

^ This.

Unless you can find a reason to expand the drive/partition why be concerned ?
We have servers around the country with 40-80 gb C: partitions that are lightning fast. Observe your servers performance using the usual tools and if you don't see a reason to change your drives/partitions/whatever then why bother ? The same holds true for CPU and RAM, you upgrade it if you see a need to.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

For those that worship the <40 gig system volumes....with server 2012? And for how long...factoring in:
*Swap file
*Temp files
*Dump files
*and a big one....increasing windows update files.

Considering Microsoft states 32 gigs bare minimum just to install, and recommends much more if you want it to run for any period of time reliably. I'd shoot myself supporting one with <80 gigs. Rather buy at least a couple of years worry free getting it over 120.

....unless you love being married to disk maintenance at least monthly. got better ways to spend my time myself.

 

[Mokester]

Agree with Stonecat...except that I've never done less than 100GB (not 120)on a 2012 server for OS volume....and the fact that I'm a big fan of one large RAID 10...but to each their own. Space is cheap now days...no need to be stingy.

 

[NYJimbo]

For those that worship the <40 gig system volumes

Who "worships" it ?

But if a server has it do you have to panic and change it ?

 

[BrentfromZulu]

That was my fear. Years ago at my old job we had 40GB XP boxes that ran out of disk space because of Windows Updates. If this thing is going to hang around for a while, in my mind it needs to be at least 80GB, if not more.

I like the idea of one big Raid 10 volume, so I might pitch that thought.

 

[HankArnold]

No need to expand

I agree with the others, there is really no need to expand based on what you are describing. Assuming that any programs installed will be on the second partition, 40GB should be enough.

Expanding a boot will require a 3rd party software and it's never 100% safe.

I'm not a big fan of single partitions on a server. It makes backing up much more of a job. Also, losing the drive loses everything. If reconfiguring, I would prefer a RAID 1 for the boot partition and RAID 10 for the other.

 

[MobileTechie]

In my experience, using the min recommended system partition is always a mistake and eventually needs expanding. All it takes is some log files to go haywire and suddenly you find the thing is totally full and you've got an annoying situation to deal with. So if you have the space available I'd do it - it's not exactly difficult.

I'd go for 100GB or more. You might as well give yourself plenty of headroom given how much space you've got.

As for the second disk-set - depends how it's performing. If it's a small office with not much happening and performance is OK then I don't see a pressing needs to spend money. If it's not then it's bound to be a good value upgrade.