Re: need suggestions on Hardware



I've heard that SCSI is on the way out, and quite frankly I don't really
understand setting up RAID and all that. It's been hard to find a good
tutorial on that.

But in terms of mailboxes, etc.....We have Exchange 2003 Enterprise edition
and we will have about 1,500 mailboxes, between 5 - 10 public folders, and I
would plan on setting storage limits per mailbox. We are also scrubbing our
email though Postini, so that cuts out a large volume of junk mail ever
hitting our information store. We are a school, so email volume is not as
much as a regular business or corporation.

I would like to find out what is the best server and disk system
architecture so I can set it and forget it !!

thanks much,

chrism


"Ben Winzenz [Exchange MVP]" <ben_winzenz@NOSPAMdotmessageonedotcom> wrote
in message news:eqSvGJAeFHA.2420@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Is there a reason you don't like SCSI drives? They are typically faster,
> hot-swappable, etc. You won't find any 15K rpm SATA drives out there,
> that is for sure. Now, SATA drives certainly will be cheaper, but that's
> about the only advantage you might see from them. SCSI solutions will
> typically be able to provide better RAID solutions as well. The SATA
> market is certainly maturing in this area, but SATA is fairly new in
> comparison to SCSI.
>
> As far as servers, many vendors have server sizing tools. You haven't
> provided any information as to how many users/mailboxes/public folders,
> etc. so it is impossible to give any guidelines as to server solutions.
>
> --
> Ben Winzenz
> Exchange MVP
> MessageOne
>
>
> "chrism" <chrism@no_spam> wrote in message
> news:Oo7OKn3dFHA.3328@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>I have one Exchange 2003 Server running on a crappy box, and would like
>> to migrate everything over to a brand new server.
>>
>> Could you provide me with suggestions on what would be an excellent
>> server solution for an Exchange 2003 Server ?
>> We have been using Dell machines, but I would prefer not to go with SCSI
>> drives, maybe SATA would be better.
>>
>> Also, there is a link that is thrown around here about Ed Crowley's
>> migration method as well as the MSKB method, could someone send me the
>> links for that ?
>>
>> Thanks for any help and suggestions !!
>>
>> chrism
>>
>>
>>
>
>


.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: ????SATA or SCSI????
    ... I only discount SATA because of their lineage. ... I perceive SATA as having a higher failure rate than SCSI in a server ... Les Connor [SBS Community Member - SBS MVP] ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: SCSI or SATA
    ... I concurr with John... ... I know that SATA are supposed to be slower than SCSI, ... >>> existing Server has SCSI drives and need your advise on the new server. ...
    (microsoft.public.backoffice.smallbiz2000)
  • Re: SATA drives...
    ... as a subsitute for SCSI. ... for the investment of a new server, OS, backup system, etc. ... relative risk of the lower-cost SATA. ... > SCSI drives are designed for servers running 24*7. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: SATA vs SCSI
    ... >We're looking at switching to Windows 2003 and buying another server to host ... >SQL Server and Exchange. ... complex answer I guess: is it still best to stick with SCSI ... I've read some positive reviews of the SATA Raptor versus ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage)
  • Re: What still uses the block layer?
    ... often _only_ be used by going through the SCSI midlayer. ... That's because modern USB, ATAPI, SATA ... As far as I can tell the hard drives do not have serial numbers easily ...
    (Linux-Kernel)