Re: New Mailbox Store or New Storage Group?

Andy, can you please clarify this... Right now I have a c: and d: drive.
Two mirrored array. Logs are on c:, db is on d: because it was recommended
the logs and db's be on seperate spindles. The d: drive is basically full.
I can only add two more drives to this server which will become the e: drive.
Because of space issues I will need to put the new db on the e: drive. In
this case, are you saying you would put all logs and the db on the e: drive?

Or how about I put large drives, 300Gb for the new drives, move the current
database to the new drives and add another database to the same drives and
put the logs on the d: drive. I don't want to get this too complicated but
would you rather see the logs on the same volume as the database before you
see them on the same volume as the OS?

"Andy David - MVP" wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 09:18:02 -0700, "Glen"
> <Glen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >Ben, I think Andy posted the link you are referring to. It sounds like the
> >way to go is to create a new storage group and add a mailbox store in it.
> >The server has space to add only two more drives - they of course will be
> >mirrored so the new db will go on there. The server currently has two
> >volumes - C: and D:. The transaction logs are on C:, the current db is on D:
> >I would add another volume, E: , and put the new db on it. Since I don't
> >have room for another volume, I assume the best place to but the new
> >transaction logs would also be on C:? I don't think I have much choice. (?)
>
> The logs are on the same spindles as the OS? If possible, I
> would put the logs on the new E: ( assuming its on it own spindles )
> and simply add another store to the existing SG in your case.
>
>
> >
> >"Ben Winzenz [Exchange MVP]" wrote:
> >
> >> The main difference is this:
> >>
> >> Multiple mailbox stores within the same storage group share a common set of
> >> transaction logs.
> >>
> >> Separate storage groups will each have their own set of unique transaction
> >> logs. Additionally, adding more storage groups will add to the required
> >> memory that Exchange needs when starting up. This likely won't have any
> >> impact on your server, it's more as an FYI.
> >>
> >> As an example, your first storage group will typically use E00 as the log
> >> file prefix. The Second storage group would then typically use E01 as the
> >> log file prefix.
> >>
> >> So, what you end up doing depends on what your needs are. Do you just need
> >> to separate users to a new mailbox store? If so, I don't think it will make
> >> much difference either way. If you are also wanting to separate transaction
> >> log files to a separate volume for the new store for disaster recovery
> >> purposes, then adding a new storage group with the new mailbox store would
> >> be the way to go. Microsoft's recommendation "used" to be to fill up a
> >> storage group with all the stores before creating another one, but that has
> >> changed. IIRC, it seems that they now recommend creating a new storage
> >> group after creating a few mailbox stores, or creating a new storage group
> >> when you need a new store, then balancing how you fill them. If I can find
> >> the reference, I'll post back.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ben Winzenz
> >> Exchange MVP
> >> MessageOne
> >>
> >>
> >> "Glen" <Glen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> news:A104E8AF-A624-4129-BA0F-F4A3BEA1B597@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >I would appreciate some guidance please. I'm a fairly new Exchange admin
> >> > running Exchange 2003 Enterprise on a Windows 2003 server. I currently
> >> > have
> >> > aproximately 350 users on the Exchange server with a database of a little
> >> > over 22GB. The number of users could double in the next few months. I am
> >> > at
> >> > about 40% capacity of my current disk storage space.
> >> >
> >> > I see the need split up these users to avoid filling the disk and to also
> >> > avoid having one huge database. My question is - should I create a new
> >> > mailbox store in the current storage group and just put it on a new
> >> > volume,
> >> > or should I create a new storage group. What are the advantages or
> >> > disadvantages of either method or am I totally missing something and
> >> > should I
> >> > go a whole different route. Almost any option is available to me
> >> > including
> >> > adding another server but I'd like to avoid that at this point.
> >> >
> >> > Some expert opinions on how to proceed would be greatly appreciated.
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: New Mailbox Store or New Storage Group?
    ... >way to go is to create a new storage group and add a mailbox store in it. ... The server currently has two ... would put the logs on the new E: ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.admin)
  • Re: Some Transaction Log Files Deleted
    ... Is your storage group's mailbox store still running? ... Is there any error reporting about your exchange, and its storage group, ... If Yes-No-Yes,,, then you should run the full online backup immediately, ... the last incremental backup logs are no use. ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange2000.information.store)
  • Re: changing the exchange structure
    ... mailboxes on a single storage group and a single mailbox store. ... configuration with larger drives to increase storage space. ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.design)
  • Re: New Mailbox Store or New Storage Group?
    ... way to go is to create a new storage group and add a mailbox store in it. ... The server has space to add only two more drives - they of course will be ... > transaction logs. ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.admin)
  • Re: Sizing Exchange Transaction, SMTP, MTA and Quorum Drives???
    ... Put the transaction logs for each storage group on their own drive (4 ... storage groups 4 drives). ... Make sure you add in IOPS ... But assigning 1460 GB for each LUN using traditional Storage methods leads ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.design)
Loading