Re: Hardware validation - Exchange 2007

After posting I saw the follow-up post from you clarifying you actually
meant RAID1 :)

- Did you enable circular logging because of shortage of space or any other
reason? If disaster recovery is important, you shouldn't be using it.
- Depending on your mail traffic/user profile - if the server generates
about 5 gigs of t-logs a day, with 36 gigs you should be good for over a
week. However, you need to determine what that *average* daily number is
(and also monitor what the upper bound or high number is - days when traffic
spikes). Again, this is only an issue when backups fail for whatever reason
and this goes undetected or not fixed for a number of days.
- Smallest, fastest drives are good for better performance. Besides storage
performance, you also need to think about storage space - as long as the
aggregate size of the volume provides the space you need for now and
forseeable future.

--
Bharat Suneja
MVP - Exchange
www.zenprise.com
NEW blog location:
www.exchangepedia.com/blog
----------------------------------------------


"Ariel" <Ariel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:E42A212D-04E7-4C87-AA13-0810EE21D4D6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Bharat:
Thanks for your help, it's really appreciated. I meant to say
RAID
1 but got confused. About the logs, there is circular logging now in our
current server, so I don't know how big they get. We make daily full
backups
with ntbackup, do you think I should try disabling circular logging now to
calculate the log size for our 300 users? I've always been told to use the
smallest, fastest drive available for log files, is it possible that 36GB
is
not enough to hold the logs for at least a couple of days?

I learned about LCR in a recent exchange 2007 course, but I
don't
think we have the monetary resources right now to implement it. Besides,
the
server has no more space for internal storage.


"Bharat Suneja [MVP]" wrote:

Comments inline.

--
Bharat Suneja
MVP - Exchange
www.zenprise.com
NEW blog location:
www.exchangepedia.com/blog
----------------------------------------------


"Ariel" <Ariel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:DF06961D-09F4-4F15-B872-23643C9F44A9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi all,

I have been assigned the task of designing the hardware for our new
exchange
server. It will be running Exchange 2007, in testing first, and then
we'll
move it to production.

We have 300 users now, but we will plan it for 600 users because we're
growing fast. The mailbox size is now 200MB, it will probably be larger
on
the new server but that is not defined yet.

This is what I came up with:

Dell PowerEdge 2900
2 x Xeon 5130 (2.0GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 4MB Cache)
8GB RAM (4 x 2GB FBDIMM)

2 x 36GB SAS 15K in RAID 0 for the Operating System
4 x 300GB SAS 10K in RAID 10 for the database
2 x 36GB SAS 15K in RAID 0 for the logs

For both instances above where you plan to use RAID0 - I hope you're
aware
RAID0 does not offer any redundancy - it's just striping across the 2
disks
which only offers performance advantages. At the least you want RAID1
mirroring for the OS and t-logs.

For the volume with the t-logs, you would need to calculate the current
rate
of growth in t-logs daily, estimate what it would be when you're up to
600
users, and factor in the number of days you can go without a backup (for
cases when backups fail and are either not detected/fixed for whatever
reason).

Another thing to consider - will you be using LCR (Local Continuous
Replication)? It would make sense to include that in your planning as
well -
which means you'll need an extra volume, preferably the same size as the
one
your production Store(s) reside on, to hold the LCR replica. This
provides
excellent disaster recovery capability - you simply switch to the replica
in
case of a disaster without worrying about restoring backups.
Additionally,
backups can be done from the replica instead of the production store. LCR
will also need extra CPU cycles.

Dual Gigabit NIC, redundant power supply, etc.


My boss is now asking me if there is some way to "validate" this
configuration with microsoft, but I don't think so, with exchange 2007
being
beta and all.

My questions are:

1- Do you think this configuration is ok for 600 users?

2- Is there, or will be, a server validation program for exchange 2007?

Thanks for all the help.






.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Hardware validation - Exchange 2007
    ... When you want to deploy a server for less than 50 users, ... More server planning info in Exchange 2007 documentation: ... And about validating the configuration, can you help me with that? ... this is only an issue when backups fail for whatever ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.design)
  • Re: Exchange in a Child domain
    ... Have you run the Exchange 2003 Best Practices Analyzer? ... "Protecting the world from PSTs and brick backups!" ... in the child domain on the parent domain Exchange Server. ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.setup)
  • Re: Public Folder Replication issue
    ... MVP - Exchange ... "Protecting the world from PSTs and brick backups!" ... SERVER B has the problem? ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.admin)
  • Re: Cleaning up un-neccessary files
    ... "Samantha" wrote in message ... My exchange 2000 server is partitioned ... Someone else posted about doing backups by exporting .PST files, ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange2000.general)
  • Re: Cleaning up un-neccessary files
    ... My exchange 2000 server is ... >Someone else posted about doing backups by exporting .PST ... running FTP by mistake ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange2000.general)