Hard disk configuration for Hyper-V server

L

leward

n00b
Joined
Sep 1, 2008
Messages
54
I am building a new server to test out Hyper-V but I'm not sure how I should set up the hard drives. I want to buy 6 disks overall, two in a RAID1 and 4 in a RAID5. I was going to install Server 08 host on the RAID1 and then install the VM's and data on the RAID5. But then I read where users have the Server 08 host and all the VM OSes on the RAID1 and then all the data partitions on the RAID5. I also want to install SQL 2008 but I'm not sure what RAID array you would install that on for best performance. This is only for my home/testing so the I/O needs are not very important.

I think I will either buy all 500GB drives or buy 2 1TB for the RAID1 and 4 500GB for the RAID5.


Thanks
 
Okay, first of all, unless you want to spend a hell of a lot on licensing, there is no need for Windows Server 2008. You can download Hyper-V Server 2008 for free on Microsoft's Website. Unless you need to take advantage of more than 32 GB of memory, or cluster your virtual host machines, there is no reason to run Hyper-V on top of the full version of Win2k8. If you do run 2K8, make sure to run Server-Core install. Do not install the GUI... ...eats up more resources and slows everything down.

In terms of disk setup, forget RAID5... ...that's just stupid, especially for running VMs. You're better off running two separate RAID1 mirrors, and splitting your VMs equally across the two mirrored arrays.

And yes, keep a dedicated mirror for the OS array... ...Win2K8 with Hyper-V or Hyper-V Server 2008.
 
I am in college so I can get Server 2008 for free. I am getting a technet subscription so I can get it that way too.

I'd have to think about just doing RAID1's. This is going to store more than just test VM's. It is going to be my file server when I make a VM of WHS. So I kind of like RAID5 for the higher capacity of usage hard drive space.
 
What you are spec'ing is fine. RAID1 for OS and RAID5 or RAID6 for your data. If you arent concerned about the absolute best I/O RAID5 is more than ample for heavy usage.

Installing Core doesnt really make a performance difference, just lets you have more leverage over what exactly is installed on your system. I think you are going about it correctly for Hyper-V
 
4saken said:
What you are spec'ing is fine. RAID1 for OS and RAID5 or RAID6 for your data. If you arent concerned about the absolute best I/O RAID5 is more than ample for heavy usage.

Installing Core doesnt really make a performance difference, just lets you have more leverage over what exactly is installed on your system. I think you are going about it correctly for Hyper-V
Click to expand...

Ok, so I have host on RAID1 (whether I use server core or full blown 2008) the data on the RAID5, now could you clarify on where the OS portion of the VM's would go and where I would install SQL (unless you consider SQL as data)?

I know this is unlikely to make a difference in a home environment but I would like to have it somewhat similar to real-world usage.

Thanks
 
I guess it depends on how you are going to do backups, if any, and what the sizing of the RAIDs end up being. It honestly doesnt matter where you install SQL2008. If you care about redundancy moreso than speed, i would put the VMs on the RAID5 and SQL2008 on the RAID1 if your plans are to run SQL on the host machine itself and not in a VM. Keep anything virtual on one raid and all of your host apps on the OS raid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top