1

When I came to this place, there was a Proliant ML330 G6 server with a P410i controller standing here, which acts as the active directory server, running Windows 2008 R2.

I wish the previous admin had been smart enough to document his setup, and why he chose to set it up the way he did, but unfortunately, he never did.

Now I am standing here with a headache, trying to figure out how shape things up a bit better. Also, I am not anywhere near an expert at raid configurations, but I know atleast that putting 4 disks in one array each, using raid 0, is not the wisest move.

The current configuration:

  • Array A, Disk 1 - 250 GB (System disk)
  • Array B, Disk 1 - 250 GB (ISO storage disk)
  • Array C, Disk 1 - 1TB (User homes and profiles)
  • Array D, Disk 1 - 2TB (Backup disk)

Now is the question.. there's two things I'd like to do. The 1TB disk, I'd like to upgrade to a 2TB disk.

Also, I'd like to rebuild the arrays in a better way, without loosing any data. Part of me understand why the previous admin have done the way he did - To make use of all available diskspace. Yet, I don't think this is the right way of doing it (or am I wrong?)

One way I can immagine to do this, is to change all disks to 2 TB disks and possibly using raid 1+0.

Can this be done? And if so, how can it be done safely without loosing data and/or having to reinstall the whole server with AD and all.

Best regards

Improve this question
1
  • I'm no expert either, so until someone comes up with a smarter answer, my first thought would be 4 x 2TB drives & 1 x 4TB. Get everything backed up to the 4TB then you're free to play with the rest.
    – Tetsujin
    Commented Jan 5, 2015 at 11:52

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
0

You apparently have little or no redundancy. At a minimum I would add 2 or 3 matched sized drives and set them up as either raid 1 or raid 5. Then back up the current OS drive and restore to the new raid array. At the same time I would consider also combining the home drives and profiles to the os drive by backup and restore to the new array - dependant on user activity and need for quick recovery in event of data loss you may not want to do this and alternatively set up a 2nd mirror array. If you are interested in speed gains then setting up the OS array with SSD will make a difference.

Improve this answer
4
  • I actually have no redundancy what so ever. All I got is a Windows backup, which backs up to the 2TB disk. I would love to get my hands on some faster disks, but unfortunately, as a tax funded organization, my boss won't allow me to order anything "we could do without. Save money at any cost, as long as the server can run, the users can wait another 120 seconds if that's what it takes to make it cheaper!"
    – Rickard
    Commented Jan 5, 2015 at 20:21
  • What I do know, according to my colleagues, is that the previous admin wanted to have home drives separated from OS disk, reasoning as "If the disk with homes and profiles dies, we have atleast the OS disk. and if the OS disk dies, we will atleast have the users homes and profiles safe. Better either of those scenarios, than having a total disaster where both OS and users home and profiles are lost!"
    – Rickard
    Commented Jan 5, 2015 at 20:22
  • If the OS drive goes down the way it's set up you will be forced to re-install the OS and Ad which means that the profiles etc are useless - or do you perhaps have a second DC. If you can't purchase equipment then I would consider migrating the iso images to the backup drive and then repurpose the array B drive to be a mirror of the os drive so giving you some amount of redundancy. The downside of that is that I believe it may not be possible to convert the A drive array from raid 0 to raid 1 without backing the data up and then restoring - I need to check that.
    – Peter
    Commented Jan 5, 2015 at 21:25
  • I can purchase some equipment, but Id rather get 3x 2TB disks, than 1 more 2TB disk and 2 smaller SSD's. Especially when having to explain to my boss why I need them. He knows what an SSD disk are, and would gladly say "Ok, if you need more space, then OK. But purchasing SSD disks just because it works slightly faster, then the answer is no!".
    – Rickard
    Commented Jan 5, 2015 at 21:39

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .