Re: Disk Layout on SAN
From: Kevin Lew (kevinlew_at_time.net.my)
Date: 04/25/04
- Next message: Kevin Lew: "Re: Urgent:Same LDAP port?"
- Previous message: Kevin Lew: "Re: NetBios Resolving exchange name"
- In reply to: sparkyuk75: "Disk Layout on SAN"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 14:58:56 +0800
Hi Mark,
You can refer to
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/exchange/2000/deploy/exchstor.mspx
for more information on RAID configs.
I would actually recommend that a RAID 0+1 for each SG and Tran Logs, and
RAID 5 for PF just for logical separation (in any case, the number of
spindles require will remain the same) However you may want to check with
your SAN vendor for best practices/configuration for Exchange. (e.g. EMC
Clariion claims a RAID 5 config on their box provides almost same
performance as RAID 0+1.)
Regards, KL
"sparkyuk75" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AA601464-7CB7-4798-B330-B09520D8A948@microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
>
> I have one Windows 2003 / Exchange 2003 Cluster with SAN storage. I am
planning on using three storage groups for mailboxes and the fourth one for
public folders. I am trying to determine the "best practice" for disk
configurations
>
> 1) RAID 1 is obviously best for transaction logs. Is RAID 5 or RAID 1+0
recommended for databases
> 2) Can I create one "BIG" RAID 5/RAID 1+0 volume for the databases and
then divide it up in to three logical volumes and place a storage group on
each or should I really create three seperate RAID sets, one for each
database.
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Mark :)
- Next message: Kevin Lew: "Re: Urgent:Same LDAP port?"
- Previous message: Kevin Lew: "Re: NetBios Resolving exchange name"
- In reply to: sparkyuk75: "Disk Layout on SAN"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
