• From: "Mario de Jonge" <netwerkbeheerder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "[ExchangeList]" <exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 21:32:01 +0200

Ok this is ok but to all of you who read this its perhaps better to think it

Raids are there in many ways I am not the to say you are wrong but perhaps a
littele suggestion can not hurt 

I have made a dedicated Exchange server with a 6 disk configuration.

Read it well disk.

Two store disks 1 log 1 trans  1 0S( Adv)

I use Raid to fast read and raids to fast write.

In this order it will make to me no difference if we work.

Second for every raid  I use One full channel.

So 6 disks are in fact 6 channels.

The nice thing about raids is that you can expand more easily and have more
benefits if your enterprise is expanding.

Don't forget about the rule off 66 percent for the exchange due it will fail
to you.

That's it.

Have a nice day.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Robillard [mailto:jrobill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: vrijdag 17 mei 2002 20:31
To: [ExchangeList]
Subject: [exchangelist] RE: RAID 5

Yes... Definitely do what Luis recommends.  

We installed our Win2k and Exchange2k Adv Server on a single raid
controller.   Four 10k rpm drives with the cheepest raid
controller compaq had to offer.   It all comes down to how much money we
had available to do this.. It definitely isn't what I wanted but we
needed it asap and low cost.

Its been 5 months of limping along having everything installed on a
single 100gb partition.   We are looking now at adding the hardware we
need to get performance where it should be.. Adding two more drives in a
raid-1 configuration with the best controller compaq has to offer.
This way we can split off the transaction log files, which required tons
of disk writes and excessive paging when everything is on a single

We have only 100 users or so and the server is only dishing out
exchange.  Its not used for anything else at all.  The thing is a pig in
its current state even with 1gb of memory.  

Put the money in up front and you wont regret it later.

-----Original Message-----
From: Luis Arocho [mailto:luis@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 1:13 PM
To: [ExchangeList]
Subject: [exchangelist] RE: RAID 5

It's better to use RAID 1 2 disk in mirror for Logs and OS and the RAID
5 for DB. Two aditional disk will make U happy.


-----Original Message-----
From: Saud [mailto:saud@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 12:44 PM
To: [ExchangeList]
Subject: [exchangelist] RAID 5

We are planning to change our current server with a brand new dual
processor Dell server
with 1 ghz Ram and three Hard Drives that will be setup as RAID 5. I
have read about RAID 5 that it's proper for systems where the
is not of importance
and with few read operations.
Anyone has any idea if it's gonna be appropriate for Win2k and
Exchange2k ? Any info would be appreciated.


You are currently subscribed to this Discussion List as:
luis@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send a blank email to

You are currently subscribed to this Discussion List as:
jrobill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send a blank email to

You are currently subscribed to this Discussion List as:
To unsubscribe send a blank email to $subst('Email.Unsub')

Other related posts: