SSD as OS Disk and Size requirements for 2011

Started By mar2k, Feb 09 2011 03:03 PM

Please log in to reply

6 replies to this topic

#1 mar2k

HSS Member

Members
23 posts

Posted 09 February 2011 - 03:03 PM

1. Is there a minimum OS disk size for Vail installation? I created a 40GB fixed disk (same as the SSD I would install) in VirtualBox and the setup crashes after I select the disk.
2. Any downside to using SSD as the OS disk? I for one would prefer it since there shouldn't be excessive writes to the OS drive. I had a v1 OS disk crash and it was a pain in the a&@ to get it back up. The shares were all there, but now I use SSD as the boot disk on all my builds.
3. Any threads about this?

Thanks Guys.

Back to top

#2 vinylfreak

HSS Champion

Donating Member
406 posts

Posted 09 February 2011 - 03:56 PM

I believe the min hard drive requirement for WHS 2011 is 160 GB.

Back to top

#3 jmwills

HSS Genius

Donating Member
5,373 posts

LocationHuntsville, AL - Kandahar, AFG

Posted 09 February 2011 - 04:09 PM

A 160Gig drive for the install is the minimum. As afar as using the SSD drive for the OS, I don't really see the need. There is no cost benefit yet....in my opinion. I would use WD Black Caviar drives.

Windows 7 Desktop - Antec 100 Case, Intel D8H67BL, OCZ 550W PSU, Intel i3-530 CPU w/16GB G-Skill DDR3 1333 RAM
Server 2012 - Fractal Arc Midi, CoolerMaster M600 PSU, ASUS P8H67V, Intel i5-2500 CPU w/32GBG-Skill DDR3 1333 RAM, 90 GIG OCZ SSD OS Drive – Roles: Hyper-V (WHS-SharePoint-DC-SQL-Exchange-WSE 2012), Print Server - Rocket RAID 2720 5x2TB
HTPC Build - Silverstone GD05 Case, ASUS P7H55-M PRO, CoolerMaster M600W PSU, Intel i3-530 CPU w/4GB G-Skill DDR3 1333 RAM. OCZ 60GB SSD Drive for the OS with a 120GB WD 2.5" Blue drive for data storage.
Travel Laptop: Dell XPSL502X 15.6"

Back to top

#4 tojoski

HSS Pro

Members
211 posts

LocationMcRae, Arkansas

Posted 09 February 2011 - 04:28 PM

Definitely not a cost benefit if you have to use a 160GB SSD, but if they allowed you to use a 40GB SSD for the OS, it would be worthwhile for reliability.

Back to top

#5 mar2k

HSS Member

Members
23 posts

Posted 09 February 2011 - 07:57 PM

Definitely not a cost benefit if you have to use a 160GB SSD, but if they allowed you to use a 40GB SSD for the OS, it would be worthwhile for reliability.

Yes, I would be doing it strictly for reliability.

Found an interesting article here:
http://social.micros...93-190ba541ba40

Back to top

#6 pcdoc

HSS Legend

Moderators
3,593 posts

LocationLos Angeles, California

Posted 09 February 2011 - 10:31 PM

This is one case where I would not use an SSD. As was stated, a caviar black is a better choice. Once it boots into the OS unless you are Ram starved, it runs quite well.

Main Server - WHS 2011, Core I5-2500, 12T RAID 5 (5x3T) + 2T of Mirror + 2T of backup
Second Server - 2008R2, Core I5-2500, 12T RAID 5
Main Systems - Core I7-2600k, 16 Gigs DDR3-1600, 180 Gig Intel 330 SSD Max IOPS 240 Gig Vertex 3, 2T Sata 3 for local Backup
Other systems - Core I7-2600, Core I3-530's, Core I5-2500, Core I7-920, Core I3-2100, and G620 (see System List)
My Blogs - The Docs Blog and Tablet Resource
BYOB Videos - TheBYOBPodcast
For a complete system List: Computer Systems