Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations Chriss Miller on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Disk configuration 2
- Thread starter NortonES2
- Start date
-
1
- #2
No. RAID 5 hasn't been recommended since like Exchange 2000. There is plenty to read about storage at Microsoft.com and MSExchangeTeam.com
Pat Richard MVP
Plan for performance, and capacity takes care of itself. Plan for capacity, and suffer poor performance.
Pat Richard MVP
Plan for performance, and capacity takes care of itself. Plan for capacity, and suffer poor performance.
- Thread starter
- #3
OK so given that I have 8 disks available how does this sound:-
2 disks Raid 1 for OS
6 disks Raid 10 for logs and database
or
2 disks Raid 1 for OS
2 disks Raid 1 for logs
4 disks Raid 10 for database
or another preferred setup?
-------------------------------
If it doesn't leak oil it must be empty!!
2 disks Raid 1 for OS
6 disks Raid 10 for logs and database
or
2 disks Raid 1 for OS
2 disks Raid 1 for logs
4 disks Raid 10 for database
or another preferred setup?
-------------------------------
If it doesn't leak oil it must be empty!!
-
1
- #4
The storage configuration depends on your needs. DAGs with 3 or more servers don't *necessarily* need RAID protection; servers with lower numbers of not very heavy users *may* have few enough IOPS to use SATA-based disks; you *might* be comfortable placing your DBs and transactions logs on the same drive in a DAG situation; backups *could* be dispenses with if you have a geographically stretched DAG.
Exchange 2010 gives you loads more options, but you still need to choose the best configuration for your needs. And that is ultimately a balance of cost vs business risk - you decide.
So tell us more about your needs, and we'll try and steer you in the right general direction.
Exchange 2010 gives you loads more options, but you still need to choose the best configuration for your needs. And that is ultimately a balance of cost vs business risk - you decide.
So tell us more about your needs, and we'll try and steer you in the right general direction.
- Thread starter
- #5
We currently have 140 users in one site and a DR site approx 30 miles away connected by a 50Mb point to point line.
I have successfully built a test environment on VMWare consisting of 2 exchange servers (1 in each site) both with CAS, HT and Mailbox roles installed. Created a CASArray and a DAG all of which works OK. Tested by shutting the "live" server down and connecting to the server in the DR site, mail flows OK and Outlook connectivity good.
In the production environment we will be running 2 x HP DL380 G6 servers with 8 disks, 12Gb RAM and 2 x quad core CPU. We will still need to keep offsite backups to meet the FSA regulations which in the short term we can do with Server Backup and Backup Exec.
Thanks for any comments
-------------------------------
If it doesn't leak oil it must be empty!!
I have successfully built a test environment on VMWare consisting of 2 exchange servers (1 in each site) both with CAS, HT and Mailbox roles installed. Created a CASArray and a DAG all of which works OK. Tested by shutting the "live" server down and connecting to the server in the DR site, mail flows OK and Outlook connectivity good.
In the production environment we will be running 2 x HP DL380 G6 servers with 8 disks, 12Gb RAM and 2 x quad core CPU. We will still need to keep offsite backups to meet the FSA regulations which in the short term we can do with Server Backup and Backup Exec.
Thanks for any comments
-------------------------------
If it doesn't leak oil it must be empty!!
- Thread starter
- #6
Nice servers 
A little over-speced for just 140 users, but no problem with that.
I'd go with the second of your configs, a separate mirror for the transactions logs, and a RAID 1+0 for the DB.
The DB volume might be a bit tight if you're going to give the users 2GB mailboxes (the default in Ex2010). One option here would be to configure 2 separate volumes on your OS mirror, so that physical mirror holds both your OS (C and your transaction logs (L: ??). This would be fine (IMHO) because the rational is that most of the OS stuff gets loaded into memory when the server boots, so it's okay to use that mirror pair for writing out your transaction logs on the other logical disk - this argument is even more true in Ex2010, where the disk IO has been even more optimised for fewer, more background-style disk writes. That would then allow you to have 6 disks in your RAID 1+0, giving 438GB available for your DBs.
A little over-speced for just 140 users, but no problem with that.I'd go with the second of your configs, a separate mirror for the transactions logs, and a RAID 1+0 for the DB.
The DB volume might be a bit tight if you're going to give the users 2GB mailboxes (the default in Ex2010). One option here would be to configure 2 separate volumes on your OS mirror, so that physical mirror holds both your OS (C
and your transaction logs (L: ??). This would be fine (IMHO) because the rational is that most of the OS stuff gets loaded into memory when the server boots, so it's okay to use that mirror pair for writing out your transaction logs on the other logical disk - this argument is even more true in Ex2010, where the disk IO has been even more optimised for fewer, more background-style disk writes. That would then allow you to have 6 disks in your RAID 1+0, giving 438GB available for your DBs.- Thread starter
- #8
Thanks for this, we won't be giving the users 2Gb mailboxes currently they only get 250Mb. Currently 140 users but going forward who knows, will look into 2 volumes on the OS mirror as 146Gb just for the OS strikes me as a waste would prefer something like 40Gb for the OS and 100Gb for the logs
We will be using EAS for archiving so I believe we should be OK with the disk space until Exchange 201? is available.
Again thanks for your thoughts.
-------------------------------
If it doesn't leak oil it must be empty!!
We will be using EAS for archiving so I believe we should be OK with the disk space until Exchange 201? is available.
Again thanks for your thoughts.
-------------------------------
If it doesn't leak oil it must be empty!!
Make sure you account for all of the storage overhead that EAS introduces. You didn't mention DIRT settings, or anything else that would help better size that environment. Also, what are you using for mobile devices? If it's anything other than ActiveSync compatible devices, you need to account for the storage overhead that those introduce (like Blackberry devices).
Pat Richard MVP
Plan for performance, and capacity takes care of itself. Plan for capacity, and suffer poor performance.
Pat Richard MVP
Plan for performance, and capacity takes care of itself. Plan for capacity, and suffer poor performance.
- Thread starter
- #10
That's fine. But both EAS and BES cause substantially increased drive activity on mailbox storage. You have to account for that. Between the two, you should account for as much as 1200% more IOPS on your Exchange storage than if you didn't have them.
Pat Richard MVP
Plan for performance, and capacity takes care of itself. Plan for capacity, and suffer poor performance.
Pat Richard MVP
Plan for performance, and capacity takes care of itself. Plan for capacity, and suffer poor performance.
- Thread starter
- #12
- Status
Similar threads
