Re: Hard Disk Setup for new Exchange 2003

Tech-Archive recommends: Repair Windows Errors & Optimize Windows Performance

From: Al Mulnick (amulnick_No_SPAM_at_ncDOTrr.com)
Date: 02/12/05 

Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:33:33 -0500

For what you propose, I would personally want to put the log files on the
RAID drives. For 100 users, that is likely enough disk etc. (especially
since they're 15K drives, right?)

Al

"Victor Petropoulos" <VictorPetropoulos@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:CC6929E7-7A55-4B8B-BF63-4D930516EA66@microsoft.com...
> We are about to install a new Exchange 2003 server in our site and I have
> one
> question regarding the placement of the database and log files. The new
> server has a SCSI 15K RPM RAID-5 (3 drives +1 online spare) as well as an
> ATA
> 250 GB drive. Our intend is to make the setup as disaster-proof as
> possible. Our current layout consists of 100 mailboxes out of which only
> 10
> permanantly contain e-mails and the rest are downloaded to PSTs on local
> systems. I realize that the best approach is to keep the database and
> logs
> on separate volumes for performance reasons. Clearly the RAID array is
> the
> most "safe" location for all files (OS, databases and logs) but that would
> possibly negatively affect the performance of the system. Putting the log
> files on the ATA drive would improve performance but since the reliability
> of
> ATA drives is questionable we would be risking losing the logs if that
> drive
> went south. We will be taking nightly (possibly twice daily) backups
> using
> Veritas' Exhange product but should the logs be somehow lost (due to a
> failed
> drive) we would be forced to restore the whole database and logs from the
> night before, a proposition we are not too excited about. My question is
> this, how bad would performace suffer if we placed both of the database
> and
> log files on the RAID array taking in consideration our mailbox usage? If
> doing so would noticably hinder performance what would the reccomended
> course
> of action be should we place the logs in the ATA drive and then someday
> loose
> it? Purchasing additional hardware is not an option right now and
> splitting
> the RAID-5 (+ online spare) to 2 RAID-1s is not desirable either. I would
> appreciate any comments you might have.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Victor

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Disk Configuration for AD domain controllers
    ... YOu can configure your hardware into 2 RAID 1 arrays. ... need guidance for configuring the disk drives. ... I read that it is recommended to store the AD database and logs on a ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.general)
  • Re: disk latencie problems on a brand new exchange server with 2 mailboxes!!!!!!!!
    ... the logs (or a single drive for the OS, a mirror for the logs, and a ... From the description of the problem, odds are all 5 drives are in 1 RAID ... disk, space isn't the only factor; ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.admin)
  • Re: RAID options on a 2U Server with eight drives
    ... We have purchased a Dell PowerEdge R710 2U server with eight 2.5" drives as a dedicated database server for an IO intensive application. ... I am conflicted because I often read of the need to split off logs/OS onto their own disks, but then keep reading about the wonders for RAID 10. ... drives in RAID 10 for data, logs, etc ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.server)
  • Re: RAID options on a 2U Server with eight drives
    ... as a dedicated database server for an IO intensive application. ... then keep reading about the wonders for RAID 10. ... drives in RAID 1 for OS ... drives in RAID 10 for data, logs, etc ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.server)
  • Re: disk latencie problems on a brand new exchange server with 2 mailboxes!!!!!!!!
    ... Take 4 a the drives in RAID 10 with one hot spare for the OS and page file, ... still limited by the degrees of freedom in the disk architecture. ... the logs (or a single drive for the OS, a mirror for the logs, and a ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.admin)