Re: Separate spindles

Count me in on that incompetant SAN admin stuff in all honesty. The issue I
see is one of disk space efficiency. A SAN is composed obviously of a set
of disks. Suppose you want to set asside space (say the recommended 500
megs) for the quorum drive on dedicated spindles, but your drives are 80
gigs per. That's a HUGE waste of space. I know that the Quorum example
isn't the best, but you get my point. It seems like any time you want to
get away from the single-array SAN configuration, you'll do so at the
expense of efficiently utilized disk space.

Having said that I really am fairly incompetant when it comes to SAN
configuration, so I welcome any enlightenment y'all might have in that
regard.

"Ed Crowley [MVP]" <curspice@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%234Z0bZQwHHA.2040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The good thing about a SAN is that it abstracts the disk topology from
you, so you need not be concerned about drive configurations. The bad
thing about a SAN is that it abstracts the disk topology from you, so you
need not be concerned about drive configurations. The reason this is bad
is that SAN engineers often don't know what they're doing when it comes to
Exchange, tending to rely on vendors' marketing hyperbole, like "the cache
will take care of all performance problems" and "drive geometry and LUN
configuration don't matter". Exchange 2007 is supposed to be much more
friendly to incompetent, misguided SAN engineers, but at a cost of lots of
RAM in the mailbox servers.
--
Ed Crowley
MVP - Exchange
"Protecting the world from PSTs and brick backups!"

"TwistedPair" <twistedpair@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uFcOc9KwHHA.3444@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
All, I've read all over the place that the transaction logs, and the DB's
should be on separate spindles. However, suppose we have a SAN with a
ton of disks raided together into a large volume. The only way we can
separate the DBs and the logs in that scenario is to partition out that
volume. Does that still count?

Thank you,
TP





.