System Drive Question...

2007年4月24日 18:37

0

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the 10GB System Partition was a temporary limitation and that closer to WMS release (CTP and beyond) the user would be able to set the System (C:\) partition size like with all other Window versions. Also, it has been recommended that the System disk be the largest of all disks. I know this is a XP / Vista file calulation problem while coping multiple files, but is this the plan for future builds or are these items being worked?

Last, has anyone tried resizing the System partition?

Thanks,

Jay
- 回复
- 引用

全部回复

2007年4月24日 20:56

0

The system partition is unlikely to ever be user configurable.

Why would you want to? Its only purpose is to hold the OS so you'd just be taking away space for data. 10GB is enough space for the OS and as many programs/add-ins as you're ever likely to need.
- 回复
- 引用
2007年4月24日 21:24

0

On the note of the system drive being recommended to be the largest of all your storage disks, I have an interesting secnario. How is it supposed to be handled when I realize sometime down the road I have maxed my current storage accomodations and also acknowledge by this time 750GB and the Hitiachi 1TB drives have dropped in cost, motivating me to use those drives to expand my storage needs. I will, by all accounts, want to use one of the newer drives for my system(volume 1) as it is the largest of the bunch. So how do I go about making this change without:

1) Loosing data on the original sys drive, since it is now full to capacity (which is why I am adding more drives) should I have to re-install WHS

2) Transfer the partition so I don't loose data and WHS settings (are we suggestions just ghosting the partition onto the new drive? is this a supported method?)

My concern I guess comes from the fact that it is great WHS allows you to simply add whatever drives are around to supplement your storage needs, however shouldn't we be making the basic assumption that subsequent drives have a high likelyhood of being larger in capacity than the original sys volume while storage prices per GB fall as time goes on? Since this is the case, this does not jive with the many accounts I have read of making sure your sys volume is on the largest physical disk in the array. Am I just tired or has anyone else thought about this?
- 回复
- 引用

2007年4月25日 1:31

virtuapete wrote:

On the note of the system drive being recommended to be the largest of all your storage disks, I have an interesting secnario. How is it supposed to be handled when I realize sometime down the road I have maxed my current storage accomodations and also acknowledge by this time 750GB and the Hitiachi 1TB drives have dropped in cost, motivating me to use those drives to expand my storage needs.

I am under the impression that the requirement to have the largest drive as the primary drive will be eliminated by RTM. This is just a workaround for a known bug.

I wouldn't be surprised to see OEM's selling systems with only a 40GB primary drive and larger drives for data.

2007年4月25日 18:04

I've installed WHS on hardware that I was previously running Win 2003. My primary hard drive is a Western Digital 74GB Raptor which I'm still currently using. I would like to continue using that drive and after installing WHS with it's self created 10GB partition only about 5.5GB of free space remains. If load some of the programs and hardware drivers that free space drops to about 4GB. Even though it's probably not supported, I would like to add SQL Server, SharePoint, and possibly Exchange. This is going to reduce the free space to little or nothing. I also want to develop some software utilities along with some WHS plugins that will also be placed on the system partition. I just think 10GB for some users depending on their circumstance is relatively small. I think this size should be flexible with possibly a 10GB default.

The other limitation of using only your largest hard drive hasn't really been an issue with me. I usually copy files is small enough groups where I haven't run into the windows calculation limitation. The hard drive I have was purchase primarily for the system drive due the 10K rotation speed and quick access time, so until I can't I plan to continue to use this hard drive.

Jay

2007年4月25日 18:26

jlhinrichs wrote:

According to the answers to my question in this thread you can install your 3rd party software (SQL Server, SharePoint, etc.) on the D partition, leaving your SYS partition alone...

Dirk

2007年5月3日 0:34

I am just starting to go through the forums here, but I think this might have been what I ran into. I have a dell c521, yeah I know not the ideal server platform but what do you do, and it came with a 80 gig drive, I wanted to use it for boot, and my 500 gig for storage. Long story short it didn't work, the drive worked in any of my other computers but not for this. Does that sound right?

Thanks guys.

Bezalel Geretz wrote:

virtuapete wrote:

I am under the impression that the requirement to have the largest drive as the primary drive will be eliminated by RTM. This is just a workaround for a known bug.

I wouldn't be surprised to see OEM's selling systems with only a 40GB primary drive and larger drives for data.

2007年5月3日 0:39

Just my opinion here, but why would you not make something user configurable if you can? Who cares "why" or can you justify needing more than the 10 gigs, more options are better here. let someone choose the size but have a default of 10 gigs. It only seems logical to me.

Soap box dismount.

2007年5月3日 5:07

I do not have my largest drive as my primary right now, actually it is the smallest (60GB) in my configuration because it was installed first. I then added a second drive (120GB), stopped by the store a day or two later and added a third (750GB). I'm out of slots for drives in this small enclosure, but I'll likely move things to a larger unit later and add more drives via SATA cards or maybe even PCI/IDE cards.