Re: RAID 10 still best for DB's?
- From: "Gonzo" <no@xxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 10:55:27 +0100
Well a SAN is highly likely, recommend by DELL and HP
"Mark Arnold [MVP]" <mark@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:mpbu13hi74esdqd7bt32onr4p4cjrssv7a@xxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 08:00:11 +0100, "Gonzo" <no@xxxxxx> wrote:
We run Exchange 2003 Enterprise. We have 3 Mailbox stores which had 1-2Still?
databases in each and each maiailbox store in on a RAID 10 partition.
We use to have them on RAID 5 at it was very slow sometimes, our average
writes/reads to disk per second were sometimes hitting > 50 msecs. Now on
RAID 10 we sometimes get the odd >30 msecs but many when backups are
running.
We are going to be upgrading our server soon, would RAID 10 be the best
way?
Plus we will eventually upgrade this new server to Exchange 2007.
It never necessarily was.
You will not be upgrading that server to 2007. You might be rebuilding
it as a 2007 box but you won't be upgrading it.
The disk configuration is mainly down to your anticipated I/O count
and loading. The RAID is not the first thing you should be looking at,
it's how you spread the I/Os that is important.
Number of disks you have at your disposal is key to spreading th I/O
so if you can share that with us it would be good.
Also the read/writes is dependent on how many stores you choose to
have. in the new environment. RAID5 isn't good, RAID1 is better and
then RAID0+1 is better still in some circumstances.
That's DAS. Are you puttting this on a SAN because the answers are
radically different again.
.
- References:
- RAID 10 still best for DB's?
- From: Gonzo
- Re: RAID 10 still best for DB's?
- From: Mark Arnold [MVP]
- RAID 10 still best for DB's?
- Prev by Date: Re: Prevent OU Admins from setting Mailbox Size
- Next by Date: Re: Deleting public folder stores
- Previous by thread: Re: RAID 10 still best for DB's?
- Next by thread: Re: Prevent OU Admins from setting Mailbox Size
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
