none
Why did WHS choose to install on the smaller hard drive instead of the larger one? RRS feed

  • Question

  • I have 2 HD's in my server. Why did WHS choose to install on the smaller hard drive instead of the larger one? I was previously told it would choose the larger drive as the SYSVOL. What is going on here? Thanks
    Sunday, February 15, 2009 5:06 PM

Answers

  • jshoemaker21 said:

    I have 2 HD's in my server. Why did WHS choose to install on the smaller hard drive instead of the larger one?
     

    It doesn't choose to install anywhere based on drive size.  It installs on the first hard drive it sees (whichever drive is in port 0 on the mobo).

    jshoemaker21 said:

    I was previously told it would choose the larger drive as the SYSVOL.
     

    Whoever told you that was wrong.

    jshoemaker21 said:

    What is going on here? Thanks

    Sunday, February 15, 2009 5:10 PM
    Moderator

All replies

  • jshoemaker21 said:

    I have 2 HD's in my server. Why did WHS choose to install on the smaller hard drive instead of the larger one?
     

    It doesn't choose to install anywhere based on drive size.  It installs on the first hard drive it sees (whichever drive is in port 0 on the mobo).

    jshoemaker21 said:

    I was previously told it would choose the larger drive as the SYSVOL.
     

    Whoever told you that was wrong.

    jshoemaker21 said:

    What is going on here? Thanks

    Sunday, February 15, 2009 5:10 PM
    Moderator
  • Thank you for clearing that up. I was mis informed on a previous post. What does Microsoft reccomend? I have 2 drives a 750gb 32MB cache WD and a 250gb 16MB cache drive both at 7200 RPMs. I know that for server 2003 I'd install it on a partition on the larger drive. What do you think? Should I go with Microsofts reccomendations? Thanks
    Sunday, February 15, 2009 5:14 PM
  • Hi,
    since Power Pack 1 there is no recommendation any more.
    Windows Home Server setup will claim 20 GByte of the system drive for the system volume and use the rest for data.
    If you have more than 2 disks in the system, the data will be distributed to the other disks first, and on D: will only be stored tombstones.
    If you have only 2 drives, the second disk will be used for the data, but both data volumes will need at least enough space for the folders, which are going to be duplicated, so the system disk should not be too small either (although 230 GByte should be enough, you know better, what amount of data you store on shares and which of those you are going to duplicate).
    Best greetings from Germany
    Olaf
    Sunday, February 15, 2009 5:22 PM
    Moderator
  • jshoemaker21 said:

    Thank you for clearing that up. I was mis informed on a previous post. What does Microsoft reccomend? I have 2 drives a 750gb 32MB cache WD and a 250gb 16MB cache drive both at 7200 RPMs. I know that for server 2003 I'd install it on a partition on the larger drive. What do you think? Should I go with Microsofts reccomendations? Thanks


    Since Power Pack 1 was released, it doesn't really matter any more (and especially since KB957825 was released).  All of the data is stored on the secondary drives first.  WHS will only use the primary drive for data storage when necessary.
    Sunday, February 15, 2009 5:28 PM
    Moderator
  •  If you have more than 2 disks in the system, the data will be distributed to the other disks first, and on D: will only be stored tombstones. What do you mean the other disks first? WHat happens just in case I add the third drive. Thanks
    Sunday, February 15, 2009 5:29 PM
  •  
    kariya21 I just read your answer. I'm confused now. It must use the primary drive for duplication in any case correct?
    Sunday, February 15, 2009 5:31 PM
  • jshoemaker21 said:

    kariya21 I just read your answer. I'm confused now. It must use the primary drive for duplication in any case correct?


    In your case (since you only have 2 drives), yes.  That would qualify as "when necessary". ;)
    Sunday, February 15, 2009 5:50 PM
    Moderator
  • jshoemaker21 said:

     If you have more than 2 disks in the system, the data will be distributed to the other disks first, and on D: will only be stored tombstones. What do you mean the other disks first? WHat happens just in case I add the third drive. Thanks


    If you add a third drive, it won't use that drive until it has the least free space available out of all of the secondary drives.

    The algorithm used is basically:

    1)  Use the secondary drive with the least free space available (but not below 20 GB free)
    2)  Use the primary drive

    Also, WHS will not move files from drive to drive unless absolutely necessary (for example, you tell WHS to remove a drive).
    Sunday, February 15, 2009 5:55 PM
    Moderator
  • So it's basically useless to add the third drive unless one of the two drives hits 20gb free space?
    Sunday, February 15, 2009 6:01 PM
  • jshoemaker21 said:

    So it's basically useless to add the third drive unless one of the two drives hits 20gb free space?


    I think you're going to get different opinions on that question.  IMO, yes, it's a waste.  That drive won't be used until your secondary drive (your 750 GB) has less than 20 GB free.  The only exception would be that with your current setup, Folder Duplication will only hold a max of 230 GB of data (and, depending on the backup database, it might even be less than that).  If you plan on duplicating everything and have more than about 150 GB of data, then I think you should add a third drive (preferably another 750 GB to keep it even).  Otherwise, I wouldn't.
    Sunday, February 15, 2009 6:14 PM
    Moderator
  • I don't think I will have more data than that at this time. If I do I will add my spare 250gb for more space. That should work fine? Is there any redundancy such as a RAID scenario from placing the third drive at this point in time?
    Sunday, February 15, 2009 6:22 PM
  • jshoemaker21 said:

    I don't think I will have more data than that at this time. If I do I will add my spare 250gb for more space. That should work fine?

    Yes.

    jshoemaker21 said:

    Is there any redundancy such as a RAID scenario from placing the third drive at this point in time?

    RAID is unsupported on WHS.  Besides, Folder Duplication is very similar to RAID 1 (mirroring).  The "advantage" of adding your spare 250 GB drive now would be that even with Folder Duplication on, you still won't be using your primary drive for data storage (at least not at first).  Some users don't want any data stored on the primary drive (even with Duplication on).  Personally, I don't care which drive has which data as long as the data I want duped is duped on 2 different drives.
    Sunday, February 15, 2009 6:41 PM
    Moderator
  • I agree. My theory is to save the drive for another time I need it. So thombstones would not be placed on the third drive?
    Sunday, February 15, 2009 6:48 PM
  • jshoemaker21 said:

    I agree. My theory is to save the drive for another time I need it. So thombstones would not be placed on the third drive?


    No.  All tombstones are stored on the primary drive (no matter how many secondary drives you have).
    • Marked as answer by jshoemaker21 Sunday, February 15, 2009 7:07 PM
    • Unmarked as answer by jshoemaker21 Sunday, February 15, 2009 7:07 PM
    Sunday, February 15, 2009 6:52 PM
    Moderator
  • Oh, is it safe to install the OS on the 250Gb disk? If I run out of space and add a third  disk will it then place them there automatically? WHat happens if the primary disk fails?
    Sunday, February 15, 2009 6:55 PM
  • jshoemaker21 said:

    Oh, is it safe to install the OS on the 250Gb disk?
     

    Yes, you can install WHS on any drive (greater than 80 GB in size).

    jshoemaker21 said:

    If I run out of space and add a third  disk will it then place them there automatically?
     

    Yes, all tombstones are automatically stored on the primary drive.

    jshoemaker21 said:

    WHat happens if the primary disk fails?



    The tombstones are automatically re-created during the Reinstallation process.
    Sunday, February 15, 2009 7:04 PM
    Moderator
  • Okay either way my data is mirrored.... Just to be finalize this: WHat if the primary disk fills up and there is no more room to create tombstone or duplicate? What would happen if I added the third drive would it then start placing tombstones along with duplicated files on that drive? You have been a great help. I appreciate it.
    Sunday, February 15, 2009 7:09 PM
  • jshoemaker21 said:

    Okay either way my data is mirrored.... Just to be finalize this: WHat if the primary disk fills up and there is no more room to create tombstone or duplicate?
     

    First, the primary hard drive will never fill up until last (no real data goes on that drive until all other drives are full).  By that point, you will receive notifications through the Console that you are running out of server space.  As for the tombstones, those are so small you will never fill up your primary drive with only tombstones. ;)

    jshoemaker21 said:

    What would happen if I added the third drive would it then start placing tombstones along with duplicated files on that drive?
     

    Tombstones only go to the primary drive no matter what.  As for duplicated files, WHS will create alternate shadows for new files that are added to a share with Folder Duplication turned on to that third drive.  However, WHS will never move data from one drive to the other unless necessary.

    jshoemaker21 said:

    You have been a great help. I appreciate it.

    You're welcome.  You might want to check out some of the Technical Briefs for more info.

    • Marked as answer by jshoemaker21 Sunday, February 15, 2009 7:23 PM
    • Unmarked as answer by jshoemaker21 Monday, February 16, 2009 5:12 PM
    Sunday, February 15, 2009 7:20 PM
    Moderator
  • Thank you. If I have any other questions I'll post them for you! Thanks
    Sunday, February 15, 2009 7:23 PM
  • Kariya, do you use anything for defragmentation?
    Monday, February 16, 2009 4:00 PM
  • jshoemaker21 said:

    Kariya, do you use anything for defragmentation?


    No.  I don't see any need for it.
    Tuesday, February 17, 2009 1:52 AM
    Moderator
  • Many people say that. But in my role as an IT Admin it is a need. Why is it not needed for WHS?
    Saturday, February 21, 2009 8:12 PM
  • A very interesting topic given that based on pre-PP1 requirements I currently have a 1Tb system/OS drive, and 1 x 1Tb & 1 x 500Gb data drives (+ 500Gb 'backup' drive).

    My 1Tb OS/System drive is sitting there with almost nothing on it, while my 500Gb is almost full and the 1Tb is getting there.

    It seems a huge waste of 'free  space' and based on this conversation, I'm considering starting from scratch and making the 500Gb the OS/System drive and therefore having 2 x 1Tb data drives.

    Is there a flaw in my plan such as failure/removal of a data drive requires equivalent space on the OS drive for data migration/replacement ?


    Saturday, February 21, 2009 8:48 PM
  • jshoemaker21 said:

    Many people say that. But in my role as an IT Admin it is a need. Why is it not needed for WHS?


    it may be helpful on a desktop, since the access to the disk can be a bottleneck for larger programs (i.e. games) and documents.
    A server is usually not used as desktop, so the bottleneck is the network (and it will stay that way independent how fragmented the disks might be).

    Best greetings from Germany
    Olaf
    Saturday, February 21, 2009 9:04 PM
    Moderator
  • I have to disagree as an MCSA Microsoft books even state that defragmentation radiply occus on Servers. THis is because data is constantly bing retrieved, moved etc.
    Saturday, February 21, 2009 9:40 PM
  • FireTech said:

    A very interesting topic given that based on pre-PP1 requirements I currently have a 1Tb system/OS drive, and 1 x 1Tb & 1 x 500Gb data drives (+ 500Gb 'backup' drive).

    My 1Tb OS/System drive is sitting there with almost nothing on it, while my 500Gb is almost full and the 1Tb is getting there.

    It seems a huge waste of 'free  space' and based on this conversation, I'm considering starting from scratch and making the 500Gb the OS/System drive and therefore having 2 x 1Tb data drives.

    Is there a flaw in my plan such as failure/removal of a data drive requires equivalent space on the OS drive for data migration/replacement ?




    The flaw in your plan is there really is no reason to change anything.  The primary drive will be used for data strorage, it just doesn't happen until the other drives are nearly full.  However, if you really feel you are wasting space, just remove the 500 GB drive from the pool and WHS will move data from that drive to the 1 TB secondary drive first, and once that is nearly full, it will move the remaining data to the 1 TB primary drive.
    Saturday, February 21, 2009 9:50 PM
    Moderator
  • Thanks for the response.

    I see your point in that it's all 'free space' in the end, it just looks wrong having it sat there on that big drive! :)
    Sunday, February 22, 2009 5:34 AM