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

    Server configuration


      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

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



                          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



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



          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

            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

              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

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

                • 5. Re: Server configuration

                  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

                    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

                      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!