Re: Jetstress performance strange results...

Tech-Archive recommends: Repair Windows Errors & Optimize Windows Performance

From: Richard Roddy [MSFT] (rroddy_at_online.microsoft.com)
Date: 04/22/04 

Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 11:31:22 GMT

My opinion of what to put on the RAID 1 drives if you add them would be the
Exchange transaction logs.

Thanks,
Richard Roddy
Microsoft Exchange Support

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

--------------------
>From: "Jéjé" <willgart@_A_hAotmail_A_.com>
>References: <#braySCJEHA.3996@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>
<etDBxwhJEHA.528@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>
<e2VdVitJEHA.3624@cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl>
>Subject: Re: Jetstress performance strange results...
>Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 10:40:40 -0400
>Lines: 211
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
>Message-ID: <eRMtpVuJEHA.1764@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>
>Newsgroups: microsoft.public.exchange.admin
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.253.5.68
>Path:
cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGXA05.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP12
phx.gbl
>Xref: cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl microsoft.public.exchange.admin:423004
>X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.exchange.admin
>
>Well,
>
>its what I've conclude myself, I have to change my disk subsystem.
>but I'm suprised by the poor performance of a system which has 10 times
more
>power then my old server.
>
>unfortunatly, I can't change my HD configuration for the moment because my
>server is in production and I've a lot of applications abvailable on it.
>* MS CRM
>* Reporting Services
>* Exchange 2003
>* Sharepoint windows services
>* home made ASP.NET applications
>* Index server
>* Live communication server 2003
>* Active directory
>* File sharing
>
>Its a SBS 2003 server, so, some of these applications are installed "by
>default".
>has you can see, I push this server in its limits ;-)
>Only ISA Server is installed on another computer...
>
>I currently looking for a 64mb write cache module for my smartarray
>controller. I except a big performance improvement on my server with this
>addon.
>
>If I add 2 drives in RAID 1 (stripped) what is your recommandation for the
>files to be put on this new set of drives?
>
>Jerome.
>
>
>"Richard Roddy [MSFT]" <rroddy@online.microsoft.com> a écrit dans le
message
>de news:e2VdVitJEHA.3624@cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl...
>> Jetstress shows whether your disk configuration is an issue on an
Exchange
>> server.
>>
>> In your case, I have to say that the reason the difference is as small as
>> it is is because you are using RAID 5 on Server A and RAID 0 on Server B.
>>
>> For the database operations being tested, RAID 0 is much more efficient
>> than RAID 5. Thus, even the older hardware runs fairly well in comparison
>> to the new hardware.
>>
>>
>> Microsoft makes the following recommendations for storage of Databases:
>>
>> As you plan your storage solution for these files, implement a solution
>> that ensures reliability; in other words, RAID-0 is not a recommended
>> option. After reliability, your storage solution is based on a choice
>> between optimizing performance (RAID-1) and optimizing capacity (RAID-5).
>> If possible, use RAID-1 (or RAID-0+1) for these files.
>>
>> You can store public folders on a RAID-5 array because data in public
>> folders is usually written once and read many times. RAID-5 provides
>> improved read performance.
>>
>>
>> And these recommendations regarding Transaction Logs:
>>
>> You can significantly improve the performance and fault tolerance of
>> Exchange servers by placing each set of transaction log files on a
>separate
>> drive. Because each storage group has its own set of transaction log
>files,
>> the number of dedicated transaction log drives for your server should
>equal
>> the number of planned storage groups. With a Storage Area Network
>solution,
>> you can select a product to easily partition the virtualized space into
>> separate virtual drives for storage groups and transaction log files. In
>> addition, because transaction log files are critical to the operation of
a
>> server, you should protect the drives against failure, ideally by
hardware
>> mirroring using RAID. A RAID-0+1 configuration (in which data is mirrored
>> and then striped) is recommended.
>>
>>
>> As far as opening the email with the large attachment goes, unless the
>item
>> is edited, it is not moved from the STM to the EDB. More info on this can
>> be found in the following article:
>>
>> 232323 Native Content Storage in Microsoft Exchange
>> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=232323
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Richard Roddy
>> Microsoft Exchange Support
>>
>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>rights.
>>
>> --------------------
>> >From: "Vinod Bhatt [MSFT]" <vbhatt@online.microsoft.com>
>> >References: <#braySCJEHA.3996@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>
>> >Subject: Re: Jetstress performance strange results...
>> >Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:39:56 -0400
>> >Lines: 77
>> >X-Priority: 3
>> >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>> >X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
>> >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
>> >Message-ID: <etDBxwhJEHA.528@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>
>> >Newsgroups:
>microsoft.public.exchange.admin,microsoft.public.exchange.setup
>> >NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.29.145.9
>> >Path:
>>
>cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGXA05.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!tk2msftngp1
3
>> phx.gbl
>> >Xref: cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl microsoft.public.exchange.setup:108615
>> microsoft.public.exchange.admin:422791
>> >X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.exchange.admin
>> >
>> >Jerome,
>> >I guess you question is about the slow response that your clients are
>> >seeing. I would recommend that you get collect and analyse the perfmon
on
>> >your exchange server.
>> >
>> >Check the following counters for your disk performance. (read the
>jetstress
>> >doc for more details on counters)
>> >
>> >- Physical disk\Average Disk sec/read>> This should usually average
>around
>> >40ms (0.040) with max of 100ms
>> >- Physical disk\Average Disk sec/write>> This should usually average
>around
>> >40ms (0.040) with max of 100ms
>> >- Physical Disk\ current disk queue length >> This should average around
>> 1.5
>> >x number of spindel
>> >
>> >Hope this helpd.
>> >-vb
>> >--
>> >---------------
>> >This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>rights.
>> >---------------
>> >
>> >
>> >"Jéjé" <willgart@BBBhotmailAAA.com> wrote in message
>> >news:%23braySCJEHA.3996@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> I've just test my server with the jetstress tool
>> >> because I found my server not so responsive.
>> >> I've also tested another and old server with the jetstress tool at the
>> >same
>> >> time.
>> >>
>> >> My configs:
>> >> Server A= Xeon 2.8ghz + 1gb Ram + 4 * 36 Gb 10krpm SCSI RAID 5 + SBS
>2003
>> >> Server B= P2 350mhz + 256 mb ram + 3 * 9 Gb RAID 0 (Stripped) (yes, a
>> very
>> >> old server) + Win 2003 standard
>> >>
>> >> Creating 200 000 records take 1200seconds on the server A and 1500sec
>on
>> >the
>> >> server B!!!!
>> >> So, for my tests, the Server B is only 20 to 25% slower then the A.
>> >> and its not what I expect.
>> >>
>> >> What can I do or test ?
>> >>
>> >> My server A is my production server. I've only 15 users on it, but my
>> >> private store is "huge" (avg of 100mb by user) because we exchange a
>lot
>> >of
>> >> documents.
>> >>
>> >> From a client side, my server appear unresponsive when I open a email
>> with
>> >a
>> >> big attachment (10mb for example). From what I've read, exchange 2003
>> >store
>> >> an email in the STM database, when this EMail is opened through
>Outllook,
>> >> Exchange copy the content from the STM to the EDB database. I presume
>the
>> >> copy of this information between the 2 files takes a lot of time and
>the
>> >> server appear unresponsive.
>> >>
>> >> any idea ?
>> >>
>> >> For a new server, I'm surprised by the porr performance.
>> >> Last year my configuration has been: Server B + SBS 4.5 (with Exchange
>> >5.5)
>> >> + RAID 5 config instead-of strip and this old server with the same
>> private
>> >> store size had the same performance. (or a little more performant,
>> because
>> >I
>> >> never or rarelly get the unresponsive message)
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for your help.
>> >>
>> >> Jerome.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: After manually undoing a recent MS Update, my server is a mess
    ... Keep in mind that I have seen OEM drivers up there so given that you've blown that image away, I can't say for certain that the 'critical' was 100% pushed by Microsoft. ... External USB is no replacement for local drives. ... LOL I show my naivety here when I say that I showed great diligence in my blind application of any MS suggested resolution to "Critical Errors" on my Small Business Server Monitor Report. ... When I got the first BSOD, I booted from the orginal CD and chose to only restore the System files. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: After manually undoing a recent MS Update, my server is a mess
    ... information to login to my server remotely to look around--hoping he could ... External USB is no replacement for local drives. ... stored on) and chose to only restore the System files. ... The "Cases" drive was actually a shared folder on an external ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: After manually undoing a recent MS Update, my server is a mess
    ... During the restore, the server rebooted without confirmation. ... The "Cases" drive was actually a shared folder on an external ... I mirrored the two drives ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: SBS 2003 UnResponsive after an Hour or so
    ... And if you boot into safe mode, does the Raid Storage Manager show the array as verifying. ... Even during the boot process there is a black screen saying both drives are "Healthy". ... So if I boot into the Windows OS and stop the Verify using the RAID Storage Manager software the server will run without freezing. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: RAID on server
    ... Please confine your questions to one server at a time. ... Raid5 will give you space equal to the number of drives added together - ... controller supports it. ... so just take in what I was told) And I have to get the RAID working. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)