Jump to content
MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. ×

Windows 2008 r2 mirrored disk space dropped


Recommended Posts

... also the windows folder alone occupies 38.9 GB of space i have no idea why its taking such amount of disk space?

You've said this or something similar several times.  Did you try any of the various tools listed above to try and see which exact files are taking up space? I'm guessing either user profiles, though not in the Windows folder of course, and/or temporary files, but I could be wrong.

Cheers and Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

... also the windows folder alone occupies 38.9 GB of space i have no idea why its taking such amount of disk space?

You've said this or something similar several times.  Did you try any of the various tools listed above to try and see which exact files are taking up space? I'm guessing either user profiles, though not in the Windows folder of course, and/or temporary files, but I could be wrong.

Cheers and Regards

 

Oh is that so then i have to look apart well i have decided to place a new server instead, but being other servers are AMD inserting a x64 architecture either raise any compatible issues and the PDC resides in an AMD machine

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never heard of a problem with servers of different CPU manufacturers being in the same network.

well it just a thought of the hardware but am still in research of the space occupied by the file system also i have another doubt if the no of users accessing the server grows rapidly  will it might the cause of the buffer that occupies the space even though its matter of bandwidth whether it also has any inner mechanism

Link to post
Share on other sites

And even if the OP does get a new sever, he is likely to eventually run into the same problem again, unless he determines what files are taking up space, which shouldn't take long to determine using the suggested tools.  Once the "which files" are known, the "why" might or might not become obvious.

 

Cheers and Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

@bestibnu

The meta-subsonic bandwidth buffer of an AMD CPU if connected to a Domain through a parahyperthreading connection could well create a cloaking layer temporarily hiding the users growth until it is too late and cause a RAID 1 to implode by physically allocating sparse files. :w00t:

 

Hey, the devil made me write it :ph34r:, but you actually started it!  :realmad:

 

jaclaz

Link to post
Share on other sites

And even if the OP does get a new sever, he is likely to eventually run into the same problem again, unless he determines what files are taking up space, which shouldn't take long to determine using the suggested tools.  Once the "which files" are known, the "why" might or might not become obvious.

 

Cheers and Regards

Using the tools that traced out the files occupying the disk space are as follows and its found to be the windows and users files also its not you mentioned its the other way when "why" the "which files" are obvious and it remains the same while did manually the thing is as i mentioned in my previous post the users are too taking more disk space as well

 

Windows 38.4gb

           Installer 16.7gb

           winsxs 11.2gb....

Users 30.7gb

           user1 6.9gb

           user2 3.8gb....

Files 16.0GB

            pagefile.sys 16.0GB

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me guess. :unsure:

 

That Server has 8 Gb of RAM and the Pagefile is set manually to 2x i.e. 16 Gb?

Or has it 16 Gb of RAM and the pagefile is system managed?

 

I find it unlikely that it System Managed, hit 90%commit and it has 5.3333333 Gb of RAM... ;) 

 

What about the idea of having a dedicated dump file? 

http://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/2860880

 

Or maybe introducing user quotas....:whistle:

 

jaclaz

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me guess. :unsure:

 

That Server has 8 Gb of RAM and the Pagefile is set manually to 2x i.e. 16 Gb?

Or has it 16 Gb of RAM and the pagefile is system managed?

 

I find it unlikely that it System Managed, hit 90%commit and it has 5.3333333 Gb of RAM... ;)

 

What about the idea of having a dedicated dump file? 

http://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/2860880

 

Or maybe introducing user quotas.... :whistle:

 

jaclaz

Hi jaclaz i found its 16 GB ram from the system properties and i have no idea whether both has been system managed, am getting upon the dump file thru the given link and let me know assigning user quota and tracing out the whether system managed

pagefile.sys

Edited by bestibnu
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it is one of the strangest server setups I have ever heard of.

I mean:

  • 16 Gb of RAM is what we old people call in jargon "an awful lot of memory"
  • 120 Gb Hard disk space is instead what we old people call in jargon "nice large size for the OS disk only, now where is the actual storage?"

It simply doesn't make sense (to me) as a configuration, if it's scope is to be a file server it has not a suitable storage size and way too more RAM than needed (and particularly a pagefile eating up what 15% of available storage is "crazy"), if it is *something else* (let's say a mail or http server) the user files should not be there at all (and still 16 Gb are way more than needed).

 

From it's specs:

Memory Up to 32GB (8 DIMM slots): 512MB/1GB/2GB/4GB ECC DDR2 667MHz SDRAM

...

 

Maximum Internal Storage1
Up to 600GB: two 300GB cabled SAS (10K rpm);
Up to 1TB: two 500GB cabled SATA (7.2K rpm)
Hard Drives1
3.5” SAS (10K rpm): 73GB, 146GB, 300GB;
3.5” SAS (15K rpm): 36GB, 73GB;
3.5” SATA II (7.2K rpm): 80GB,160GB, 250GB, 500GB

 

Operating Systems

Microsoft® Windows® Server 2003 R2, Standard Edition;
Microsoft® Windows® Server 2003 R2, Web Edition;
Microsoft
® Windows® Server 2003 R2, x64 Standard Edition;
Red Hat® Linux® Enterprise v4, ES and ES x86-64;
Red Hat® Linux® Enterprise v4, WS and WS x86-64;
SUSE® Linux Enterprise Server 10 x86-64

 

 

Consider how a fully installed 2003 R2 x64 should be something like less than 5 Gb.

If you use a Server 2008 R2 and 2x36 Gb Mirrored SAS drives you have -18 Gb available for anything else :w00t::ph34r:

 

jaclaz

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it is one of the strangest server setups I have ever heard of.

I mean:

  • 16 Gb of RAM is what we old people call in jargon "an awful lot of memory"
  • 120 Gb Hard disk space is instead what we old people call in jargon "nice large size for the OS disk only, now where is the actual storage?"

It simply doesn't make sense (to me) as a configuration, if it's scope is to be a file server it has not a suitable storage size and way too more RAM than needed (and particularly a pagefile eating up what 15% of available storage is "crazy"), if it is *something else* (let's say a mail or http server) the user files should not be there at all (and still 16 Gb are way more than needed).

 

From it's specs:

Memory Up to 32GB (8 DIMM slots): 512MB/1GB/2GB/4GB ECC DDR2 667MHz SDRAM

...

 

Maximum Internal Storage1

Up to 600GB: two 300GB cabled SAS (10K rpm);

Up to 1TB: two 500GB cabled SATA (7.2K rpm)

Hard Drives1

3.5” SAS (10K rpm): 73GB, 146GB, 300GB;

3.5” SAS (15K rpm): 36GB, 73GB;

3.5” SATA II (7.2K rpm): 80GB,160GB, 250GB, 500GB

 

Operating Systems

Microsoft® Windows® Server 2003 R2, Standard Edition;

Microsoft® Windows® Server 2003 R2, Web Edition;

Microsoft

® Windows® Server 2003 R2, x64 Standard Edition;

Red Hat® Linux® Enterprise v4, ES and ES x86-64;

Red Hat® Linux® Enterprise v4, WS and WS x86-64;

SUSE® Linux Enterprise Server 10 x86-64

 

 

Consider how a fully installed 2003 R2 x64 should be something like less than 5 Gb.

If you use a Server 2008 R2 and 2x36 Gb Mirrored SAS drives you have -18 Gb available for anything else :w00t::ph34r:

 

jaclaz

Actually the server is used to run a couple of applications. It has two roles print and document service,RD services while harddisks are mirrored users are accessing the application through RDP and it might be the cause for occupying the space next to the windows folder

but most of the files are stored to a another mapped drives server under

same domain by the applications and leaving user files by the users on itself

 

And being a Raid1 i think its not even eligible to extend the harddisk space

2008 R2 standard os

HDD is 120GB

 

Edited by bestibnu
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, in the good ol*times, years before there were all these graduated IT technicians and all these powerful hardwares we were forced to use common sense® when dealing with computers, trying to tailor their setups to what  the actual needs were.

 

From what has been posted till now, that particular server is misconfigured with an excessive amount of RAM when compared to the available hard disk space, a senseless pagefile setting and with an OS that is too d@mn bloated to reside on such a small hard disk device, to which there is seemingly the issue of an awful (if the actual data resides on another machine) amount of data per user, additionally seemingly unmanaged.

 

What would make sense IMHO (and of course it depends on a number of factors that only you can know) are only two things:

1) get a pair of suitable larger hard disks and restore to them the current OS data and settings unmodified (though they will remain absurd with a couple of 500 Gb disks it will go on a long time

2) check and correct the settings, slim down the unneeded data, the obsolete parts of the OS, reduce the pagefile size to a decent value, you don't anyway really want to ever analyze a 16 Gb crash dump.

 

Personally, I would also trace actual memory usage as - as a guess - it is unlikely that you ever hit more than 6 Gb, in which case it would make sense to remove some RAM an leave the thingy with 8 Gb of Ram.

 

Consider how in normal operation when a NTFS filesystem is filled up to 85% it starts to be an issue and rule of the thumb is to make it so that at most 80% is used.

 

jaclaz

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

C:\Windows\Installer folder contains a lot of patches. You should clean that folder out if the patches are already installed, those files "should" only be used to uninstall the patches.

Try cleaning that Installer folder out. Probably will find a lot of .msp files in there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

C:\Windows\Installer folder contains a lot of patches. You should clean that folder out if the patches are already installed, those files "should" only be used to uninstall the patches.

Try cleaning that Installer folder out. Probably will find a lot of .msp files in there.

Is that a good idea by doing so because found on the net its not proper to do as suggested by microsoft

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that a good idea by doing so because found on the net its not proper to do as suggested by microsoft

 

 

I will repeat how MANY THINGS (some of which were listed above) are ALREADY EVIDENTLY NOT PROPER on that machine, currently it is a MESS, i.e. it is SEVERELY MISCONFIGURED, you re NEAR to have the filesystem COLLAPSE through filling it up to the brim and you worry about deleting unneeded files being "not proper"? :w00t:

 

I give up.  :wacko:

 

jaclaz

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...