7 Replies Latest reply on Aug 16, 2012 9:12 AM by ryyno10

    Server configuration

    ryyno10

      I am currently running a RAID 1+0 configuration (4 hard-drives with 1 hot spare) with OS/Live DB/BackUp partions. Additional hard-drives were purchased for the server which will fill three vacant drive bays (a NEW total of 8 drives).

       

      1. Would I experience any performance (or unforseen issues ) if I configure the new (3) hard-drives as RAID 5 and use them as a backup physical partition?

       

      2. On another note, should I move the page file to the RAID 5 or just leave it with a partition with the live files and OS? There seems to be conflicting information (on other forums, etc) in regard to using separate drives, such as a RAID 1 (with OS) and a RAID 1+0 with Live file, page file, and backup partition.

       

      Any suggestion/comment is welcomed and appreciated!

        • 1. Re: Server configuration
          MattLeach

          Here is some information that i jotted down from a 2010 DevCon FTS session on Preparing for Server

           

          Hardware:

                          SAS drives recommended over SATA as they are faster and more reliable.

                          RAID10 or RAID5 recommended for optimal performance.

                          RAID1 very slow

           

          3 Partitions recommended:

          1. OS, applications, swap files (Windows), logs
          2. Databases
          3. Local Backups, performance logs

           

          Operating System:

          1. Latest OS updates as well as BIOS
          2. Turn off automatic updates
          3. Exclude FM Data and Backups from Virus Scan

           

          Network:

          1. Gigabit network recommended
          2. NIC Pairing may help balance the load

           

          Memory:            

          1. FileMaker Server memory Cache     
            1. (Physical memory – 128) * .25
          2. If running 4GB RAM, recommended to set the cache to maximum to increase performance.

           

          On my FileMaker Server i've adapted this approach using 4 300 GB WD Velociraptor 10k RPM hard drives and it has worked very well for us in terms of stability, speed and reliability.

          1 of 1 people found this helpful
          • 2. Re: Server configuration
            oditech

            The only thing that I would add to this adready great list is not to do multiple raids on the same controller. The overhead on the controller is not worth it.

            • 3. Re: Server configuration
              ryyno10

              Thanks for the comments!

               

              Are you suggesting that the OS/Live/Backups/etc is recommended to reside on a RAID 10 configuration?

              • 4. Re: Server configuration
                MattLeach

                I currently have my setup in a RAID 10 configuration with 4 drives and 1 spare.

                • 5. Re: Server configuration
                  oditech

                  The live databases should be on a raid10 for sure. We have a SAN with multiple raid controllers and multiple RAID sets. This allows us to have a RAID10 for live databses and RAID6 for everything else. I like to keep the live databases on its own. Seems to be the best performing set up I have seen so far.

                  1 of 1 people found this helpful
                  • 6. Re: Server configuration
                    oditech

                    One last thing. Really check your RAID controller for RAID10. Some do RAID 1+0 and some are RAID 0+1 This makes a huge difference.

                    • 7. Re: Server configuration
                      ryyno10

                      I decided to go with the RAID 1+0 (w/ live DB's on a logical partition and page file on another) and a RAID 5 on the same controller for my backup files.  It seems to be working great so far...  I also use a .bat file, which uses robocopy, to transfer nightly backups to a SAN drive.  Our IT deparment also uses shadow copy every night as well ( off production hours, i know there are known conflicts with filemaker and this software).   

                       

                      Seems like a pretty good backup scheme..

                       

                      Thanks for the advice!