1 large disk or 2 smaller disks for a file server?
-
I'm creating a new file server, which will be a VM. The source (original file server) has 1.7TB of used storage. 641GB of that is Marketing (mainly videos), and the rest is Engineering (cad files), User folders (docs,etc), and miscellaneous folders.
Would it be better for me to create 2 virtual disks on the target (new file server), and give the Marketing team their own disk? Or should I just move everything over to 1 big virtual disk?
-
@Fredtx one big disk. Partitions or even logical volumes are not security mechanisms. You'd really only do that if you like needed two different types of file systems or something of that nature. It is in no way an "organizational" mechanism.
-
Ok. I wasn't sure if having 1 large disk would cause performance problems with the large amounts of files/folders. Also, this is a Windows server if it makes any difference.
-
Am for single also,.. less to manage
-
@Fredtx said in 1 large disk or 2 smaller disks for a file server?:
I'm creating a new file server, which will be a VM. The source (original file server) has 1.7TB of used storage. 641GB of that is Marketing (mainly videos), and the rest is Engineering (cad files), User folders (docs,etc), and miscellaneous folders.
Would it be better for me to create 2 virtual disks on the target (new file server), and give the Marketing team their own disk? Or should I just move everything over to 1 big virtual disk?
2 virtual disks versus 1 virtual disk would only matter if you need to do some kind of QoS at the vdisk level. Also, depending on how you do shares and your backup infra may matter, or maybe not.
-
@Fredtx said in 1 large disk or 2 smaller disks for a file server?:
Ok. I wasn't sure if having 1 large disk would cause performance problems with the large amounts of files/folders. Also, this is a Windows server if it makes any difference.
It's not one disk, though. It's just a virtual partition (logical volume.) All of the performance characteristics remain the same. If you want to alter performance you have to have multiple physical devices, not just create a virtual separation.
-
@Obsolesce said in 1 large disk or 2 smaller disks for a file server?:
@Fredtx said in 1 large disk or 2 smaller disks for a file server?:
I'm creating a new file server, which will be a VM. The source (original file server) has 1.7TB of used storage. 641GB of that is Marketing (mainly videos), and the rest is Engineering (cad files), User folders (docs,etc), and miscellaneous folders.
Would it be better for me to create 2 virtual disks on the target (new file server), and give the Marketing team their own disk? Or should I just move everything over to 1 big virtual disk?
2 virtual disks versus 1 virtual disk would only matter if you need to do some kind of QoS at the vdisk level. Also, depending on how you do shares and your backup infra may matter, or maybe not.
Technically 2 virtual disks is actually just the tiniest bit slower because it's extra overhead without benefit (unless using something like you mentioned.)
-
We just built a new Samba file server here that is 25TB (16 TB used).
We went with one big disk as well.
-
@dafyre said in 1 large disk or 2 smaller disks for a file server?:
We just built a new Samba file server here
Question, what authentication method are you using? I'm debating this at a client now.
-
@JaredBusch said in 1 large disk or 2 smaller disks for a file server?:
@dafyre said in 1 large disk or 2 smaller disks for a file server?:
We just built a new Samba file server here
Question, what authentication method are you using? I'm debating this at a client now.
I think it's TDBSAM (passdb backend in the samab config file). It's AD Joined though, so it may be something else.
