0

Just about to rebuild a small server which would typically be a couple of 4TB spinning disks in RAID1 to hold the OS and the VM's, for 4TB (x2) the cost is still quite high for all out SSD, but I was wondering if a compromise would be to have 2x500GB SSD's for the OS and then the 2x4TB spinning disks in another RAID1 to host the VM's.

The OS is Windows Server 2016 and the Hypervisor is Hyper-V running 10-15 various role VM's.

Other than speed restarting the server as the OS would run on the SSD's (which should not happen very often) is there any real benefit?

Thanks for any input on this.

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

No benefit. Put your hypervisor OS on slow but redundant disks and your VMs on fast redundant disks.

Or since you're doing raid, carve out your raid1 spinning disks so you can install the hypervisor on one lun and slow_tier storage for VMs that don't need IO. (file share on slow disk, database and apps on ssd)

Improve this answer
2
  • 1
    side note, there's some thoughts around wear-level ssds and raid1 (where both SSDs would likely fail at the same time) so be sure to have trim-supported raid cards if available or backups, backups are good.
    – Jacob Evans
    Jan 28, 2021 at 17:37
  • 1
    Always have backups!
    – omega1
    Jan 28, 2021 at 18:50

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .