Re: RAID levels
- From: "David Andrew" <djandrew@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 14:00:00 +0100
I would agree with Paul and Your Boss on this one as this is close to the
configuration I had until recently.
The only difference is I went raid 5 across the board. to maximize disk
capacity. just repartition the disk to suite. we had been running with this
for 2 years
If you want maximum performance from your Exchange database put it on RAID 1
or 0+1 but obviously you sacrifice disk space. just installed an external
array with 14*72.GB disks in raid 0+1 just for the database. the performance
is excellent.
Regards
D
"Paul" <wf1000xg@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ecOfl99pFHA.3424@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Glen" <Glen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:AA6AE9DA-45D3-49CF-9291-D5DA88CD1304@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > My boss and I are at loggerheads about the RAID configuration of an
> > Exchange
> > 2003 server on W2K3.
> >
> > The server is an HP ProLiant DL380 G3, dual 3GHz CPUs, and 2GB of RAM,
> > with
> > 6 drive bays (no external disk enclosures). We have 6 x 72GB 15k U320
> > disks,
> > and will be connecting them to the internal HP SmartArray 5i controller.
> > The
> > controller has 64MB of cache, but no battery backup, so the caching
> > defaults
> > (and cannot be changed) to 100% read. The client for who this is for,
> > cannot
> > incur any more expenses hence additional hardware is not an option.
> >
> > My logic tells me to create 3 physical mirror sets with the said disks,
> > and
> > configure them as
> >
> > C: OS, Binaries, Page File
> > D: Transaction logs
> > E: Exchange databases.
> >
> > That said, the server will be hosting about 450 mailboxes with average-
to
> > below average user activity, and virtually no public folder activity.
This
> > config will give us fairly good performance and excellent hardware
> > redundancy. We will be â?owastingâ?? a lot of disk space, though.
> >
> > My boss, on the other hand, insists the following is better:
> >
> > Create 2 physical RAID sets:
> >
> > (Set 1): RAID 1 â?" split into two logical drivesâ?¦C: OS/Binaries/Page
> > File and
> > D: Transaction logs. (Set 2): 4 disks in RAID 5 set (no hot spare), one
> > logical driveâ?¦E: Exchange databases.
> > Iâ?Tm convinced my proposal is better, but would appreciate an expert
> > opinion!
> > Have I got it all wrong?
> >
> > Thanks for taking the time to read through all this.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Glen
> >
>
> Reading through this and in my humble opinion I think you might have to
> conceed that your boss is correct on this one with the exception that I
> would configure the the 6th drive as a hot spare....
>
>
>
>
>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: RAID levels
- From: Ed Crowley [MVP]
- Re: RAID levels
- References:
- RAID levels
- From: Glen
- Re: RAID levels
- From: Paul
- RAID levels
- Prev by Date: Re: RAID levels
- Next by Date: Re: have to reboot to connect with exchange server
- Previous by thread: Re: RAID levels
- Next by thread: Re: RAID levels
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
