|Subject:||Re: Server Partition question|
|Posted by:||dan (firstname.lastname@example.org)|
|Date:||Tue, 21 Apr 2009|
You might want to take a good look at how Server 2008 handles backups before
you decide. It's image based and much different than NT backup. It seems to
me that if you want any flexibility on what you backup, you will still want
to partition OS and data separately.
"Chris" <Chr…@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> Back when I first got involved in IT and became certified in NT 4.0, the
> practice on servers was to have a system partition (C) and a data
> Over the last 10 years our standard size for the system partition has
> continued to grow and grow, because so many third party applications will
> only install on C.
> Now as we are beginning to roll out Server 2008, we are re-evaluating if
> want to have multiple partitions on app servers or go to one large volume.
> There are some cases where of course we will want to separate the
> applications for performance such as SQL. But the majority of our app
> are small 2 drive blade servers that do not require external storage and
> just use a mirrored pair of disks with a C and D. Eliminating D would be
> easy, but it goes against our standards for the last 10 years.
> I am looking for feedback on what others are doing for partitions using
> local storage.
Server Partition question posted by Chris on Tue, 21 Apr 2009