speaktama.blogg.se

We will have only 15 users connecting externally, but that is expected to grow. My thought was the the RDS would benefit from it.

I realize that AD will not need that at all. But matching drives are a must and SSD is likely overkill, but if affordable is really nice. How many users? Maybe four 10K drives in RAID 10 would work well for you.

RDS could benefit from it, but only so much. Why are you looking at SSDs here? AD has zero need for an SSD. So either get two identical SSDs in RAID 1 or get two traditional spinners in RAID 1. RAID is what prevents dataloss in case one drive fails, and to get that they "need" to be identical. So, unless you can afford two SSDs, just go for two normal HDD drives, you wouldn't see any difference anyway if you used HDD+SSD.Ī second separate disk will still have data loss because you'll have to sync to it from time to time. That's what RAID is for, but as Scott mentioned earlier, better to have identical(ish) drives. But thank you for the input about RAID! my main concern was based on the fact that if an SSD goes down there could be some data loss and down time, I am just looking for solutions to minimize this. I realize that I have miss spoken about the VM with Hyper V. Hyper-V gets no VM, I'm not sure what you are picturing there, but there isn't a Hyper-V function to put anywhere. You'd want one VM for AD and one for RDS. Hyper-V goes directly on the hardware and should never be installed as a role. One is for AD the other will be for hyper v and terminal services. I am going to implement a server at the end of the month.