domenica 4 marzo 2007 16:39
Surely, this should be installed on a suitably sized drive and leave the largest drives to the shared areas, this makes more sense to me.
Tutte le risposte
domenica 4 marzo 2007 17:02ModeratoreIf you check this thread in the forums, you'll see that Charlie Kindel has explained this.
domenica 4 marzo 2007 19:18
All he says is that the system disk should not be the smallest ( something to to with the largest file you can copy ).
So if I have an 80gb disk and a 1 TB disk the 1TB disk has to be the system disk, this does not make logical sense, you'd never do this when building a server. As the 1TB disk would be your data drive.
domenica 4 marzo 2007 21:40ModeratoreHere's what Charlie Kindel wrote:The primary reason has to do with a limitation in Drive Extender in beta 2. Specifically the largest file you can copy to your server is limited to the amount of free space on the primary drive. So if you put an 80GB drive in there, and we use 10GB of it for the system partition, you have 70GB left. The largest file you could copy would be something less than 70GB.
For Vista clients this problem is exaberated by the fact that Vista calcluates required free disk space before copying. If you select 1000 files to copy and their sizes sum up to greater than 70GB Vista won't let you copy the all at once.
Worse, the way Drive Extender works it will slowly consume available space on the primary drive's data partition, writing tombstones so it will know where files really are. And duplicated shares will, in a 2 disk configuration, live on the data partition too, taking up more room.
These are limitations of Beta 2, as was stated above. I assume that means that Microsoft intends to fix this issue before shipping. At that point, it might not matter any more which disk is installed as primary.
- Contrassegnato come risposta Jessep Bangham mercoledì 24 settembre 2008 20:24