[ExchangeList] Re: Exchange 2003 disk partition'g question
- From: "John T \(lists\)" <johnlist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:30:42 -0700
OK, there are 3 levels of configurations: Acceptable, Recommended, Optimal
For Exchange, this is roughly how they would go, always of course depending
on cituation specifics such as number of mailboxes, expected store size,
budget of the company and so forth:
Barely Acceptable: 2 SCSI 15K RPM 146 GB hard drives in a RAID1
configuration. Partitions: OS, Page, Logs, Exchange DB, Other
Minumum Recommended: 4 SATA hard drives each at least 80 GB in 2 RAID1
configurations: 1st RAID1; OS, Page, Logs. 2nd RAID1; Exchange DB, Other
Optimal: 7+ SATA or SCSI or mix of hard drives. 2 RAID1 sets and 1 RAID5
set. 1st RAID1; OS, Logs, Other. 2nd RAID1; Page, Backups. RAID5; Exchange
DB
John T
From: exchangelist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:exchangelist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Patrick
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 1:25 AM
To: exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ExchangeList] Re: Exchange 2003 disk partition'g question
John,
Thanks for your very clear insight to best storage solution for exchange.
Just to add a bit and get a little more clarification.
Would it not be best to have OS and Trans Logs on Raid 1 and DB on Raid 5?
would that not be a better solution for the read and write issue?
According to an MS publication I once read, they recommend you have Trans
Logs and DB's on different physical disks, and if you decide to implement
storage groups, you are adviced to have each storage group and trans logs on
different partitions as well. Just wondering how one can achieve that
without your exchange implementation being extremely expensive.
----- Original Message ----
From: John T (lists) <johnlist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 11:38:52 PM
Subject: [ExchangeList] Re: Exchange 2003 disk partition'g question
Responding on list as it is good information for all.
Each type of RAID has goods and bads. The downside to RAID5 is it is slower
on writes, as it must not only decide where to put the data but also must
calculate and then write the checksum on the x drive. However, nothing can
beat RAID5 on reads.
While I understand your concern about drive space overhead, you have to take
a look at the larger picture. In your information, you state the server is
also going to be a file server. If at all possible, I would suggest using a
different server for that, or using an external storage device such as one
that has 4 drives and is configured as RAID5 so the OS only sees the virtual
drive.
Getting back to Exchange, there is a lot of writing going on, both to the
Exchange DB files as well as the transaction logs, therefore they are both
better suited to be on RAID1 sets. Same thing with your page file partition,
a lot of writing and reading is done there.
For a partition holding files for storage, there is not a lot of writing
going on so RAID5 is fine. Same thing with a SQL database. The Database
writing is done in chunks, where is most of the IO is reads, so SQL
databases are often on RAID5, but the transaction logs are never on RAID5.
John T
From: Jason Davis [mailto:JDavis@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 3:22 PM
To: 'johnlist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: [ExchangeList] Re: Exchange 2003 disk partition'g question
Hi John,
Please forgive my ignorance....
I was reading your email regarding Exchange Server fault-tolerant
recommendations. What is the reason for 4 physical drives in 2 RAID-1 sets?
Currently, we are building a new Exchange Server which contains 4, 150GB
drives. We were planning on using RAID-5 whereby we would have a total of
450GB free disk space (since we would effectively lose the 1 drive due to
striping). If we go with 2 RAID-1 sets, we are down to 300GB free disk
space...... Keep in mind that we want to use this as a File Server in
addition to an Exchange Server. Is that recommended? How do you feel about
us implementing RAID-5 instead?
Thanks for your time!
(I hope you don't mind me emailing you directly)
--Jason Davis
_____
From: John T (lists) [mailto:johnlist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 2:35 PM
To: exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ExchangeList] Re: Exchange 2003 disk partition'g question
For an Exchange server, recommendation is minimum 4 physical drives in 2
RAID1 sets.
First RAID1 set: OS partition, Page file partition, Logs partition
Second RAID1 set: Exchange DB partition, Backup partition
John T
From: exchangelist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:exchangelist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Todd Lemmiksoo
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 2:23 PM
To: 'exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [ExchangeList] Re: Exchange 2003 disk partition'g question
Yes, raid 1 = 2 physical drives.
_____
From: exchangelist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:exchangelist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael B. Smith
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 4:40 PM
To: exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ExchangeList] Re: Exchange 2003 disk partition'g question
You have a SINGLE 73 GB drive?
From: exchangelist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:exchangelist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Todd Lemmiksoo
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 4:22 PM
To: exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ExchangeList] Exchange 2003 disk partition'g question
I will be migrating my Exchange 5.5 org to Exchange 2003 in the near future.
(Thanksgiving weekend) And am asking for disk drive partitioning
suggestions. Our current Exchange org is taking about 15 Gb of disk space on
an NT4 server. I have a 73 Gb drive that I am planning on using for the
Exchange 2003 setup. What size partitions should I build for the migration?
Todd Lemmiksoo
Network Administrator
All-Mode Communications, Inc.
1725 Dryden Road
Freeville, New York 13068
(607) 347-4164 x440
1-877-ALLMODE (toll free)
<http://www.all-mode.com/> http://www.all-mode.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Other related posts:
