Re: How do you deal with a lot of e-mail?



On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 15:46:17 -0500, "BHarley99" <bharley99@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Mark,

Your reply is advocating staying away from large disk storage systems.

Oh no it's not. It's advocating a sensible balance between what's in
an online store and what's sent offline because it's "never" being
accessed.

Without large disk systems what options do you have to store large exchange
databases and the log files for a system this large? I can't imagine that
any single exchange store would be greater than 100GB each. I think that is
a realistic managable size especially when considering the possibility of
needing to do a store restore or some other maintenance such as offline
defrags

Storing on a SAN is simply the only way to go these days. DAS is just
a dead solution because you simply don't get the flexibility unless
additional software such as AppAssure or MS DPM is implemented. If
you're talking multi terabytes of mail, be it directly in the store or
be archived off or whatever, a SAN is essential.

Perhaps the option would be to setup a larger cluster using smaller disk
systems on a SAN. By spreading the disk load across a SAN or multiple SAN's
with multiple back-end Exchange servers that would essentially spread the
load but were also talking about a lot of $$ in this solution too.

A mailbox cannot be spread across multiple disk types, nor can a
database (Except for the product I mention (Whom I do not work for or
take cash from)). You can spread stores across multiple SANs through
FC or iSCSI fabrics even a basic SAN will do you 12TB without breaking
sweat so multiple SANs (controllers to be precise) isn't really the
way to go. Replicate them, sure, but you'd only need the one. I think
the larger NetApp solutions tip at about 1PB so we've a good way to go
before the sky starts falling in.


I agree to keep mail off the mail system as much as possible using archiving
system but at some tipping point your archiving system will be very large
and disk intensive as well.

Yes. Online storage in an Exchange store for nn days, archive for nn
months? and then offline to tape for nn years. All those paramaters
are for the business to decide on a case by case basis.


Thoughts?

I reckon we're on the same page here, just emphasising different
methods of achieving the same thing.


"Mark Arnold [MVP]" <mark@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:houde3h7cv5v3uhb1n9ugp4pfk1o0h2sgc@xxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 12:20:02 -0700, John
<John@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

justmark,
did you ever come up with a clear solution on this? I'm in the same boat
and
stuck on what direction to go.
thanks,
John

"justmark" wrote:

I'm curious about how all of you deal with enormous quantities of e-mail
on
your Exchange server? How do you all deal with terabytes of e-mail? Do
you
use aftermarket archiving solutions? Or do you just have HUGE disk
arrays to
hold it all? What about backing it all up? I'm just curious.
We have the non-enterprise Exchange version and are about to move to
enterprise. At that point, hundreds of GBs of .pst files will move into
the
information store. Within a year, it will double. Probably another
doubling
in another year.


Thanks!
Mark
If you're in to multi terabytes of email then yes, archiving solutions
are the way to go. EAS and Enterprise Vault are but two of many.

Never use PST files. If the information needs to be kept then it
should be kept as an integrated entity. PST files jsut split the mail
up and you get a bloated amount of mail.

Huge disk arrays are not the way to go really. There's no point just
adding FC shelf to FC shelf to yet more FC shelf. Sure, products like
Compellent will allow you to spread a LUN across multple shelf types
but get to a certain point in Terabytes and even that starts getting
too expensive and the snapshots get ugly and performance suffers.



.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: Disk Configuration help
    ... > stores has a low impact in most cases vs. having one large one. ... > single store vs. a multiple store configuration due to background tasks ... the disk is the limiting factor in performance etc. ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.design)
  • Re: Question about MOUNT in multiple clusters
    ... > node in the cluster". ... > Does the SAN software in the SAN and on VMS provide extra-cluster ... > to know about all the disk ... multiple nodes can mount a resource with simultaneous write ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: How to verify/fix High Disk Read Latencies in Exch2003 ?
    ... Exchange production servers are, the SAN is an EMC CX600. ... >>> current log file on disk and continues until data in the log buffers ... Comingling occurs whe two or more LUNs reside ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.admin)
  • Re: HP EVA4000 / IBM DS4300 / EMC CX3-20/40
    ... disk array with the virtual raidsets on top. ... So, the system admin, and the DBAs had to create and manage lots of ... separate LUNs and *manually* manage the performance among them to ... applications on the SAN. ...
    (comp.arch.storage)
  • Re: How to verify/fix High Disk Read Latencies in Exch2003 ?
    ... Do they all map LUNs to your SAN? ... > wondering how the disk could be highly utilized if I have no users ... >> following formulats for the RAID type of each LUN: ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.admin)