Shared partition vs shared folder on a partition

By puterfx ·
I?m finally cleaning up and reorganizing a network that I inherited a year or so ago and have 2 win 2003 servers that are very similar and about 65 XP workstations. One server is my AD/print/data server and the other is just a data server (maybe AD backup later). On both servers I have a separate HDD for the OS and 4 250 G HDD?s set up as Vol1 Raid1 and Vol2 Raid1. On the AD server I had partitioned the Vol 1 and Vol 2 to group users into 3 separate groups, ie financial & admin, sales and marketing and a couple of share partitions and mapped directly to those partitions. The arrangement worked fine until I started to run out of room on one of the partitions. Now that I have a second server, I can increase the size of the partitions but I?m wondering which arrangement would be better ? separate partitions that are mapped OR one partition that contains separate folders. The advantage of the single partitions (250G) with separate group folders and appropriate permissions seemed like it would be a better way to go as the folders would grow or shrink based on need but it seems like the performance with the folders on a single partition is not as good, quick, as with separate partitions. The financial group has a couple of programs on their drive that they access, the sales have the same situation and marketing is basically data storage. The shared folders are just data. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance for any feedback or suggestions.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Answers

Share your knowledge

Related Discussions

Related Forums