i recently start working in a new (small) company having an "old" file server with windows server 2003 and an hw raid 5 with four disks.
Last week the server is dead.
We decided to build up a newer system with windows server 2008 using a PC with this hardware :
CPU: Core i3 3,2 GHz
RAM: 2GB
Motherboard supports Raid. (we can't use the hw controller from the first server)
Examining the disk configuration i not sure about which one could be better for us between a Radi 5 with 4 disks (as in the past) for OS and Data, or two distinct Raid 1 (one for the OS and one for the Data).
We have about 60 users and about 10%-15% of them could concurrently access the server.
Moreover, in these scenario it is better an hardware raid controller or the "fake" onboard raid could be enough.
Thanks.
Best Answer
Using Windows, the built-in software RAID is often both much faster and more reliable unless you buy truly enterprise-grade hardware RAID-adapters.
As SwenW wrote, chipset RAID should not be a part of the equation at all, when buying small business-grade motherboards always get those without such options.
Always separate the operating system volumes from data volumes onto separate physical spindles. Your two mirrors suggestion is the most obvious and appropriate.
I would add some small and cheap OS disks separate from the four main disks, as you can get 60 GB consumer-grade Intel SSD for $50 and most consumer-grade motherboards have at least 6 SATA ports this is the option I would go with and just keep with a good OS disaster recovery process (a good OS volume image would suffice).