Re: Large Number of Storage Groups

My current layout is Exchange 2003 with 2 SG's / 8Db's all on the same same
RAID 10 LUNs, with spearate RAID 1 LUNs for xlogs. I went through all the
IOP calculations with EMC and have acceptable performance, but the read
times on the DB drive were never as good as I expected. Needless to say, I
am being real careful with the 2007 plan.

Thanks for your response.... I was just wondering if there was a way out of
the drive letter limitations. I will more than likely end up using less
storage groups and end up with larger db sizes as a compromise.

Mike Abbaticchio


"Ed Crowley [MVP]" <curspice@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eZnIyvr6HHA.484@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
That kind of analysis is a little beyond this forum, but the key goal
should be to keep databases and logs on separate physical volumes, but
that doesn't mean that you couldn't combine all databases onto the same
LUN if your storage is sufficiently robust, and all the logs on another,
in separate directories, of course. The hard part will be determining the
number of IOPs your server is going to require and designing the SAN for
that.
--
Ed Crowley
MVP - Exchange
"Protecting the world from PSTs and brick backups!"

"Mike Abbaticchio" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Ws-dnSu7bYiumEvbnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Anyone running Exchange 2007 mailbox servers with 20 storage groups or
more? We are SAN connected and I am in early planning for a project to
reduce the number of mailbox servers, and Exchange servers in general.
One question that stands out is how to provide separate physical and
logical volumes for DB's and transaction logs, with a limited number of
available drive letters.

Thanks in adavance,
Mike Abbaticchio





.