recommended system partition size for windows 2003?

[encryp]

we are trying to standarize on a specific system partition size for our windows 2003 servers. We cannont agree between us on a size and we would like to hear for others in the technical community what your thoughts are of a good system partition size for windows 2003. Also if you could include why you would recommend that sizes for your system partition, that way we know the though behind the recommendation.

thank you for you response.

Francisco

 

[mrdenny]

I like a nice big system drive.

I usually just put 2 36GB drives into a RAID 1 for the OS.

This gives me more than enough room for the OS and swap file, as well as any additional binaries that need to sit on the drive.

Everything else gets pushed to another drive. Also by not making two partitions out of the array it keeps me from having to worry about putting other things on the same disks and slowing down the swap file.

Denny
MCSA (2003) / MCDBA (SQL 2000)

--Anything is possible. All it takes is a little research. (Me)

http://www.mrdenny.com

(Not quite so old any more.)

 

[encryp]

Denny...

thank you for your response. I would completely agree with you about having 2 drive mirror on a raid 1 for the OS. That is what we used to do at my last company; we used 18GB drives on a mirror set. But at this new company the other technical staff is stuck in using only a 6GB partition for the system partition.

I think that 6 GB for a system partition is just too small specially for windows 2003. They are getting stuck on the fact that it is over the minimum requirements.

We have been going back and forth on it and I know I won't win the argument to increase it to 18GB but I am willing to settle for a system partition of 9 GBs. They are still not willing to give in. That is why I am posting this question on the forum. In need to know what others in the technical field are doing for system partitions and why. This is so I can have some impartial thoughts from outside the company.

thanks,

Francisco

 

[mrdenny]

What is the logic for keeping it at 6 GB. What are they using the rest of the space on the disks for?

Storage is cheep. 6 GB is just two small for a machine these days. You've got a box with say 2 GB of RAM. So you have a 2-3 GB swap file. That leaves just 3-4 GB for the OS. If the machine ever crashes you'll need an additional 2-3 GB for the dump file plus another 2-3 for the swap file. That's 4-6 Gig already, which leaves no room for the OS. What is there is software that needs to be installed? That's going to take more space that you don't have.

8 GB is the smallest I'd ever go. The only reason that I'd say that small is ok, is becuase some older Compaq servers can't boot of an array that is bigger than 8 GB. In a perfect 18GB at a minimum. That leaves plenty of room for any apps that need to be installed, plus plenty of room for the un-install files that all the MS Patches leave on the machine, plus room for a dump file or two, and the swap file, and still have room to spare.

Storage is cheep these days. Tell them to cough up the extra few bucks and get the hell over it.

Denny
MCSA (2003) / MCDBA (SQL 2000)

--Anything is possible. All it takes is a little research. (Me)

http://www.mrdenny.com

(Not quite so old any more.)