Re: Review of new design - Please

Easiest first:

"Do I need separate physical disks for each of the above sets?" For some
yes, for some no. There's a trade-off for each. Read on..

"Is an array necessary for the SMTP que?" - No, but it will provide some
performance boosts in some situations. RAID 1 would be fine in many
situations. Your situation may vary, but it's likely it would be fine.

The reason to separate them as a best practice is because of I/O types. I'm
sure you're familiar with that concept already, but you can generally get
better perforamance and space with RAID 1+0 than you could with just RAID 1.
RAID 5 typically incurs a write penalty to update parity across the drives,
so some disk calculations will have you looking at it like this:
RAID 0 = write penalty (WP) = 1
RAID 1 = WP = 1
RAID 1+0 = WP = 1
RAID 5 = WP = 4

SMTP traffic is typically write heavy in nature with 7:1 w/r not uncommon.
Could be higher. That's going to be determined by message size, frequency,
and volume in most cases. The larger the message the higher the write
incurred because Exchange has made the decision to follow the RFC by
accepting the message before processing it. You accept every message before
doing anything with it in a default configuration. Bottom line? If you
don't have that much SMTP traffic you may be able to put those queues
elsewhere (not on the log file drives though).

"Why would you mirror the page file?" Why would you separate it?
Performance mostly. I think you could leave it on the OS drive and likely
be fine according to the chart you have listed.

"If I have more than one storage group do my trans logs have to be on
different physcial drives that are mirrored?"
It's all about trade-offs. If you have more than one SG, you'll have more
than one set of logs. One set for each SG to be exact. Since log activity
is serial write in nature, you may want to separate these to avoid
performance issues related to disk latencies. Then again, some SAN devices
can mask this along with buffers in the application etc. Typically, it is
recommended to separate these to their own disks (phys) to alleviate
bottlenecks related to disk latencies and to allow for better recovery if
you lose the store or the binary drives.


Was it me and I wasn't going to consider the cluster considerations I might
lay it out like this:

> C:\OS, Exchange - Raid 1 - direct attached storage >> Keep
> D:\Page File - Raid 1 - direct attached storage >> Move to OS
> E:\SMTP and MTA queues - Raid 0+1 - SAN >>D:\RAID1 DAS (note the cluster
> config may preclude this but I would still leave it RAID 1 if on the san)
> F:\log files for Group1 - Raid 1 - SAN >> Keep
> G:\DB for Group1 - Raid 0+1 - SAN >> Keep
> H:\log files for Group2 - Raid 1 - SAN >> Keep
> I:\DB for Group2 - Raid 0+1 - SAN >> Keep


Does that help?

"rdw24" <rdw24@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:13CFDFC3-60F8-4ED9-BB3A-1E4B41047988@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Have been pulling my hair out trying to design a new Exchange enviroment
> based on best practices from Microsoft. This is enough to drive someone
> nuts!
> We currently utilize pop3 mail thu a Linux box with about 500 users. Will
> setup and install an Exchange enviroment with the mailbox count for users
> moving to approximately 1400.
> Overall plan is to setup an FE/BE config utilizing ISA 2004 out front w/
> FE
> residing in internal network. Have already purchased ISA and FE hardware
> and
> am now grappling with best setup for BE. My current idea is to set up an
> Active/Passive Cluster with a small SAN using the HP packaged cluster
> which
> is (2) DL380 with a MSA1000 Fiber storage controller.
> Here is where I get confused. Microsoft best practice recommends: ( Raid
> 1
> for OS)-(Raid 1 for page file????)-(Raid 1+0 for SMTP queues)-(Raid 1 for
> log
> files)-(Raid 1+0 for DB). Questions are as follows:
>
> Why would you mirror the page file?
> Do I need separate physical disks for each of the above sets?
> Is an array neccesary for the SMTP que?
> If I have more than one storage group do my trans logs have to be on
> different physcial drives that are mirrored?
>
> According to MS Optimizing Storage doc my layout would be as follows:
> C:\OS, Exchange - Raid 1 - direct attached storage
> D:\Page File - Raid 1 - direct attached storage
> E:\SMTP and MTA queues - Raid 0+1 - SAN
> F:\log files for Group1 - Raid 1 - SAN
> G:\DB for Group1 - Raid 0+1 - SAN
> H:\log files for Group2 - Raid 1 - SAN
> I:\DB for Group2 - Raid 0+1 - SAN
> Thats 4 physical drives in each server and a minimum of 16 drives in the
> SAN
> - I only have 14 bay available in the SAN.
> I would greatly appreciate any help.
> Thanks,
> Ron
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: New computer case - 23 bay
    ... I wouldn't mind going down the two separate cases route, ... o Selling your disks and moving to fewer large capacity disks ... What I think you should consider is RAID 6... ... All SCSI 10K drives. ...
    (uk.comp.homebuilt)
  • Re: A8N SLI Deluxe Question
    ... > Currently the drives are partitioned and my apps are on one partition. ... Someone suggested using RAID 0. ... The media rates for disks are still in the ~70MB/sec range ... the array reports certain errors. ...
    (alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus)
  • Re: Exchange Disks
    ... I was looking at using a cheaper alternative with 7,200 RPM Server SATA ... Logs raid 1 mirror ... consider single drives for the OS and or Logs instead of mirrors. ... Is there some sort of rule-of-thumb for setting up disks based on a number ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.setup)
  • Re: Beginning to think about VMware and SCO 5.0.5
    ... faster 15K drives will provide ... I am now gun shy of SCSI RAID: On 6/12 I was called at 19:50 ... the two RAID1 disks in the primary were down ... and the nightly backup was restored to it. ...
    (comp.unix.sco.misc)
  • Re: New Lightwave Workstation
    ... Id imagine it's better to install a PCI Sata raid controller card rather than run off the motherboard for performance reasons. ... I've always gone with RAID 0 as I don't need the redundency on drives that are used just for rendering. ... | from several disks at once to make up the file. ...
    (comp.graphics.apps.lightwave)