Re: Ideal Hard Drive configuration

Hi,

Thank you for your kindly update.

The performance of Exchange Server depend on how many users in your
organization, you can refer to the deploy whitepaper, as Ben mentioned, you
can run Exchange Best Practices Analyzer utility to check your Exchange
Server, for more detailed questions, please contact our Advisory Services
support team for an thorough solution.

Your understanding and cooperation is appreciated.

Have a nice day!


Best Regards,

Chace Zhang (MSFT)

Microsoft CSS Online Newsgroup Support

Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security

=====================================================
This newsgroup only focuses on Exchange technical issues. If you have
issues regarding other Microsoft products, you'd better post in the
corresponding newsgroups so that they can be resolved in an efficient and
timely manner. You can locate the newsgroup here:
http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/en-us/default.aspx

When opening a new thread via the web interface, we recommend you check the
"Notify me of replies" box to receive e-mail notifications when there are
any updates in your thread. When responding to posts via your newsreader,
please "Reply to Group" so that others may learn and benefit from your
issue.

Microsoft engineers can only focus on one issue per thread. Although we
provide other information for your reference, we recommend you post
different incidents in different threads to keep the thread clean. In doing
so, it will ensure your issues are resolved in a timely manner.

For urgent issues, you may want to contact Microsoft CSS directly. Please
check http://support.microsoft.com for regional support phone numbers.

Any input or comments in this thread are highly appreciated.

=====================================================

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


--------------------
| From: <davidhc25@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| References: <#0fkTwN2GHA.4632@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<ub8bQIO2GHA.4648@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<eLgshyO2GHA.3564@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<Z5$XUtv2GHA.4916@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| Subject: Re: Ideal Hard Drive configuration
| Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 16:55:51 -0400
| Lines: 260
| X-Priority: 3
| X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
| X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869
| X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
| X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962
| X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0637-2, 09/15/2006), Outbound message
| X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
| Message-ID: <uAAKST22GHA.1568@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| Newsgroups: microsoft.public.exchange.admin
| NNTP-Posting-Host: 167.21.225.162
| Path: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl
| Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.exchange.admin:569387
| X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.exchange.admin
|
| Thanks. I will go thru the reading during the next weekend.
| I am monitoring exchange more actively now since I seem to give 5 more
| minutes a day (for now) and I am trying to improve performance.
| I was thinking of getting another server, and have it "well configured"
| Our current server is chunking more than 2 GB even thought it has 2 GB
and
| we have seen some messages in Outlook that is retrieving email or waiting
| for exchange.
| I had been reading on the memory (RAM) for a while since we had some
event
| entries for it, but I wanted to get a visual interpretation of how the
hard
| drives would be configured to provide the performance and reliability
| withouth putting 40K for a new server (in the case that I start using
RAID
| 10 for every separation of data).
| So I am looking at a limit of 8 hard drives, and I wanted to plan how to
| have them set up and how to use them. As I put in the example, this is
what
| we did for our oracle servers and it came out extremely well. We were
able
| to build a server that is extremely fast in the response for the queries
| with only about 6000$.
| Unfortunately no one did care to do the same for the Exchange server
before
| it was purchased.
| "chace zhang" <v-chacez@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| news:Z5$XUtv2GHA.4916@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > Hi,
| >
| > Thank you for posting here!
| >
| > According to your description, I think that this question is for
| > consultative assistance with design, and deployment issues instead of a
| > problem resolution issue. Thus, it is suggested that you contact our
| > Advisory Services support team for an thorough solution.
| >
| > For more information on Advisory Services, please see:
| > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?id=fh;en-us;advisoryservice
| >
| > However, I would still like to provide some info on this issue:
| >
| > Although you would like to deploy internal server with more than 4 GB
| > which
| > may be more stronger, I would like to let you know that servers that
| > implement hot-add memory or that are configured with more than 4
gigabytes
| > of physical RAM can require large amounts of additional kernel memory to
| > support these resources. This reduces the kernel memory available for
| > applications. Even though disk, network and processor bandwidth may be
| > more
| > than adequate, lack of kernel resources can be the bottleneck that
limits
| > application scalability.
| >
| > If kernel memory issues are not adequately addressed, it may be
necessary
| > to reduce the server load by removing large numbers of mailboxes or to
| > reduce the number of concurrent client connections to the server.
| >
| > Symptoms of kernel memory exhaustion include:
| >
| > - Slow performance
| > - Server crashes or cluster failovers
| > - Errors that report complete exhaustion of system page table entries
| > (PTEs) or kernel pool memory
| >
| > So please not configure the Exchange Server with more than 4 GB RAM.
More
| > info here:
| >
| > Configuring Hot-Add and Large Memory for Exchange 2003
| > http://blogs.technet.com/exchange/archive/2005/12/14/416065.aspx
| >
| >
| > Meanwhile, no matter as a FE or BE Server with more than 1 GB physical
| > RAM,
| > please follow article below to optimize Memory Ssage in Exchange Server
| > 2003
| >
| > How to optimize memory usage in Exchange Server 2003
| > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/815372
| >
| >
| >
| >
| > I have included some articles about Windows 2003 planning and deployment
| > for your reference:
| >
| >
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windowsserver2003/plan/default.
| > asp
| >
| >
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windowsserver2003/deploy/defaul
| > t.asp
| >
| > Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Deployment Kit
| >
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/techinfo/reskit/deploykit.mspx
| >
| > Windows Server 2003 Deployment Kit: Designing and Deploying Directory
and
| > Security Services
| >
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=6cde6ee7-5df1-4394-
| > 92ed-2147c3a9ebbe&displaylang=en
| >
| >
| > "Exchange Server 2003 and Exchange 2000 Server Front-End and Back-End
| > Topology"
| >
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=E64666FC-42B7-48A1-
| > AB85-3C8327D77B70&displaylang=en
| >
| >
| > For more detailed configuration, I believe that our Advisory Services
| > support team can assist you based on your requirement.
| >
| > If you have any concerns, please feel free to let me know!
| >
| > Have a great day!
| >
| >
| >
| > Best Regards,
| >
| > Chace Zhang (MSFT)
| >
| > Microsoft CSS Online Newsgroup Support
| >
| > Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
| >
| > =====================================================
| > This newsgroup only focuses on Exchange technical issues. If you have
| > issues regarding other Microsoft products, you'd better post in the
| > corresponding newsgroups so that they can be resolved in an efficient
and
| > timely manner. You can locate the newsgroup here:
| > http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/en-us/default.aspx
| >
| > When opening a new thread via the web interface, we recommend you check
| > the
| > "Notify me of replies" box to receive e-mail notifications when there
are
| > any updates in your thread. When responding to posts via your
newsreader,
| > please "Reply to Group" so that others may learn and benefit from your
| > issue.
| >
| > Microsoft engineers can only focus on one issue per thread. Although we
| > provide other information for your reference, we recommend you post
| > different incidents in different threads to keep the thread clean. In
| > doing
| > so, it will ensure your issues are resolved in a timely manner.
| >
| > For urgent issues, you may want to contact Microsoft CSS directly.
Please
| > check http://support.microsoft.com for regional support phone numbers.
| >
| > Any input or comments in this thread are highly appreciated.
| >
| > =====================================================
| >
| > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
| > rights.
| >
| >
| > --------------------
| > | From: "Ed Crowley [MVP]" <curspice@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| > | References: <#0fkTwN2GHA.4632@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| > <ub8bQIO2GHA.4648@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| > | Subject: Re: Ideal Hard Drive configuration
| > | Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 10:30:24 -0700
| > | Lines: 299
| > | MIME-Version: 1.0
| > | Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
| > | boundary="----=_NextPart_000_006E_01C6D8B1.F45F38D0"
| > | X-Priority: 3
| > | X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
| > | X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869
| > | X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962
| > | Message-ID: <eLgshyO2GHA.3564@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| > | Newsgroups: microsoft.public.exchange.admin
| > | NNTP-Posting-Host: adsl-216-103-85-85.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net
| > 216.103.85.85
| > | Path: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl
| > | Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.exchange.admin:569067
| > | X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.exchange.admin
| > |
| > | Having a separate physical volume for the logs is not only for
| > performance, but for recoverability. If you have two physical volumes
and
| > one of them fails, you should be able to restore to the point of
failure.
| > With one physical volume, you will be able to restore only to the point
of
| > the last backup.
| > | --
| > | Ed Crowley
| > | MVP - Exchange
| > | "Protecting the world from PSTs and brick backups!"
| > | "Ben Winzenz [Exchange MVP]" <ben_winzenz@nospamdotmessageonedotcom>
| > wrote in message news:ub8bQIO2GHA.4648@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | Your current setup would likely be fine if you had 2 more drives.
The
| > main problem is likely that you only have 1 RAID array (split into 2
| > partitions). Keep in mind the following.
| > | Exchange transaction log files are just a bunch of sequential
writes,
| > thus RAID1 usually offers the best performance.
| > | Exchange databases are a mix of random reads and writes. RAID5
| > usually
| > offers the best tradeoff in terms of performance/price. RAID10 will
offer
| > better performance, but is more costly in terms of disks.
| > | If you are combining sequential writes with random reads/writes,
then
| > disk performance is not going to be optimal.
| > | In the above example, at a MINIMUM, there should be 2 separate
arrays.
| > Better case is that each array would be on it's own separate channel.
| > Best
| > case would be that there is a separate RAID controller for each array,
| > though the last case is probably overkill :-)
| > | As far as your original question, wouldn't it perhaps make more
sense
| > to troubleshoot WHY you are having performance problems? Have you run
the
| > Exchange Troubleshooting Assistant and/or the Exchange Best Practices
| > Analyzer? If not, I'd suggest doing so.
| > | http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/analyzers
| > | --
| > | Ben Winzenz
| > | Exchange MVP
| > | MessageOne
| > | Read my blog!
| > | http://winzenz.blogspot.com
| > | http://feeds.feedburner.com/winzenz (RSS Feed)
| > | <davidhc25@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > news:%230fkTwN2GHA.4632@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | This might seem like a basic question, but I think it gets
| > complicated when you put into consideration value, RAID levels,
hardware,
| > software, hard drive numbers.
| > | So, my question actually has 2 levels
| > | what would be the ideal (dream lets name it) configuration, and
what
| > would be the budget (real) configuration
| > | Having in consideration an estructure like:
| > | - Hard drive type
| > | +hard drive quantity
| > | *hard drive arrangment (RAID level and type, ie: RAID 5
| > hardware)
| > | @ Partitions
| > | $ use of hard drive (ie. Operative System and
| > program instalation, or Database)
| > | % Notes (optional)
| > | To give a nice example, we have some Oracle servers and I have
them
| > configured this way
| > | a.. - SCSI3 15K rpm 76 GB
| > | a.. + 2 Hard drive
| > | a.. * RAID 1 Hardware
| > | a.. @ /
| > | a.. $ Operative system
| > | b.. @ /var/log
| > | a.. $ for System logs
| > | c.. @ /home
| > | a.. $ for user files
| > | b.. - SCSI 3 15K rpm 146 GB
| > | a.. + 4 Hard Drives
| > | a.. * RAID 10 Hardware
| > | a.. @ /var/oracle01
| > | a.. $ Database 01
| > | b.. @ /var/oracle02
| > | a.. $ database 02
| > | This is a Linux-Oracle example, but it is the closest well desing
| > server that we have :p And Exchange uses a database, so it will help
| > better
| > to spec out a server having this kind of layout for example.
| > | Our current setup is RAID 5 hardware, with 3 hard drives 146 GB,
| > and
| > 2 partittions C and D, with the Store in the D drive and everything
else
| > in
| > C. Our database is about 40 GB, and we have 2 GB of RAM. But the server
is
| > quite slow, and there seems to be some misconfigurations, so we are
| > thinking of putting a new server (well configured) and set the new one
as
| > backend, and our current one as a front end (for OWA and ActiveSync), or
| > maybe create some redundancy.
| > |
| >
|
|
|

.