NT Server Mirroring HDD

[Sean_N]

Hi

I have this problem with an NT server that serves 12 pc's as a fileserver on a network. The server is a Celeron 1000ghz (i don't know who decided to put a celeron in a server) 256mb ram, 1 20gb hdd 5400 rpm, 1 40 gb 7200rpm, & a hp dds-3 tape drive.

Any way I was ased to install the second 40gb hdd as a mirror. I used windows nt disk administrator to mirror the 15gb partition that contains all the data to the 40gb hdd and it works ok but it has slowed the access times to the files over the network.

Now here is my question How do I make the access times faster ?
Install another 40gbhdd with a raid card ? Upgrade the cpu ? More Memory ?.

Now I am going to also use this server for a mail server and proxy so i might just need to replace the server with a faster one.

Thanks for your help

Sean

 

[jlanka]

the fact that you are software mirroring partitions of drives of unequal size (as you guessed it) is causing your problems. If they want mirroring, your suggested solution (hardware RAID1 of equal drives) will speed things up.

<i>It's always the one thing you never suspected.</i>

 

[jasen]

Not really. The fact that it's a software based RAID in the first place is what's slow. The size of the drives is irrelevant so long as the partitions that are mirrored are the same size. I do it all the time, it's not a problem.
A hardware raid will speed you up, no matter which size drives you use, or whether they're identical. I would make sure that the drives in question are of the same speed though. ie 7200rpm, 8ms, ata100, etc.


For better speed I highly recomend the raid card, better proc (celeron??), AND more memory. 256mb won't cut it after you install the additional services.

 

[jlanka]

Not really. The fact that it's a software based RAID in the first place is what's slow

ummmm.... Isn't that what I said?

<i>It's always the one thing you never suspected.</i>

 

[jasen]

the fact that you are software mirroring partitions of drives of unequal size (as you guessed it) is causing your problems.

Then later you mention hardware raid, in parenthesis yet. To me it looked like an afterthought, the main point seemed to be about drive size. Maybe I just didn't read it clearly.