On thought is how will the volume layout impact quotas if you are using
them? Another thought is how is the storage configured on the array? Does
it make sense/is there any benefit to carving it up and then stitching it
back together?


"Nordic" wrote in message
news:exSPfWSpGHA.516@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Hello:
>
> One of my file servers (Win 2k3 EN R2) attaches to a large iSCSI array. I
> have
> several shares that I want to make available off of this. As I see it, I
> can
> make a single (or a few) large LUNs on the array and then share folders
> off
> each LUN. Alternatively, I could make a separate LUN for each share (that
> is, a
> single folder at the root of each LUN). My guess is that I will do a
> hybrid but
> what are the pros and cons of each? Is there a best practice here?
>
> Thanks.
>

On thought is how will the volume layout impact quotas if you are using
them? Another thought is how is the storage configured on the array? Does
it make sense/is there any benefit to carving it up and then stitching it
back together?


"Nordic" wrote in message
news:exSPfWSpGHA.516@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Hello:
>
> One of my file servers (Win 2k3 EN R2) attaches to a large iSCSI array. I
> have
> several shares that I want to make available off of this. As I see it, I
> can
> make a single (or a few) large LUNs on the array and then share folders
> off
> each LUN. Alternatively, I could make a separate LUN for each share (that
> is, a
> single folder at the root of each LUN). My guess is that I will do a
> hybrid but
> what are the pros and cons of each? Is there a best practice here?
>
> Thanks.
>

Hmmmm? We do not currently use quotas but would like to. What are the factors
here? I recall something about having to apply quotas to the entire partition
under W2k. Is this still (or ever) the case? I think R2 expands this, no?

As for the array, it is currently one large chunk of several TB. My reason for
using discrete LUNs is that it will more easily allow me to either a) move the
LUN to another physical box attached to the array, or b) give me greater
control over expanding the LUN for just the shares that need it. My concern was
more from the Windows side: is it harder for a file server to deal with lots of
local drives? Does this add some great bandwidth demand when accessing the
array? (E.g., is pulling it all from the E: drive more efficient than pulling
it from E:, F, G, H, and I?)

So far the performance is fine especially with the jumbo frames. Any thoughts
welcome.


"John Fullbright [MVP]" wrote:
>On thought is how will the volume layout impact quotas if you are using
>them? Another thought is how is the storage configured on the array? Does
>it make sense/is there any benefit to carving it up and then stitching it
>back together?
>
>
>"Nordic" wrote in message
>news:exSPfWSpGHA.516@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Hello:
>>
>> One of my file servers (Win 2k3 EN R2) attaches to a large iSCSI array. I
>> have
>> several shares that I want to make available off of this. As I see it, I
>> can
>> make a single (or a few) large LUNs on the array and then share folders
>> off
>> each LUN. Alternatively, I could make a separate LUN for each share (that
>> is, a
>> single folder at the root of each LUN). My guess is that I will do a
>> hybrid but
>> what are the pros and cons of each? Is there a best practice here?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>
>

A write to NTFS involes a bit of metadata (the journal, MFT, Directory
structures, etc), but I don't have any data point on if it would be more or
less if you break it multiple LUNs. I was thinking quotas at the volume
level as well when I wrote the comment, however I do think R2 does add
quota management at the volume, folder or share
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...e/default.mspx. From an
IOPS standpoint, I don't see where it would be larger. I guess it comes
down to NTFS volume size and recovery scenarios.


"Nordic" wrote in message
news:uClti2epGHA.220@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Hmmmm? We do not currently use quotas but would like to. What are the
> factors
> here? I recall something about having to apply quotas to the entire
> partition
> under W2k. Is this still (or ever) the case? I think R2 expands this, no?
>
> As for the array, it is currently one large chunk of several TB. My reason
> for
> using discrete LUNs is that it will more easily allow me to either a) move
> the
> LUN to another physical box attached to the array, or b) give me greater
> control over expanding the LUN for just the shares that need it. My
> concern was
> more from the Windows side: is it harder for a file server to deal with
> lots of
> local drives? Does this add some great bandwidth demand when accessing the
> array? (E.g., is pulling it all from the E: drive more efficient than
> pulling
> it from E:, F, G, H, and I?)
>
> So far the performance is fine especially with the jumbo frames. Any
> thoughts
> welcome.
>
>
> "John Fullbright [MVP]" wrote:
>>On thought is how will the volume layout impact quotas if you are using
>>them? Another thought is how is the storage configured on the array? Does
>>it make sense/is there any benefit to carving it up and then stitching it
>>back together?
>>
>>
>>"Nordic" wrote in message
>>news:exSPfWSpGHA.516@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> Hello:
>>>
>>> One of my file servers (Win 2k3 EN R2) attaches to a large iSCSI array.
>>> I
>>> have
>>> several shares that I want to make available off of this. As I see it, I
>>> can
>>> make a single (or a few) large LUNs on the array and then share folders
>>> off
>>> each LUN. Alternatively, I could make a separate LUN for each share
>>> (that
>>> is, a
>>> single folder at the root of each LUN). My guess is that I will do a
>>> hybrid but
>>> what are the pros and cons of each? Is there a best practice here?
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>
>>
>