Re: Exchange setup with 6 drives
- From: "Asher_N" <compguy666@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 05:57:57 -0800
That's overkill. It depends on how many drives your box can accomodate.
If possible, I'd go with
2 X 18GB miiroorod for OS. they can be internal
3 X 146GB RAID5 for data. Hot swap.
2 X 146GB for logs. Either hot swap or not.
The rational being that you want to be able to recover your array
IMMEDIATELY in the event of a drive failure. An OS drive can be replaced
after hours. Logs depends.
"Nick Gillott [MVP]" <nick@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:OXWSdLe#FHA.2040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
> Then return cap in hand to the Boss, implement the following:
>
> mirrored 18GB for OS and apps
> mirrored 146GB for logs and pagefile
> leave the other 2 internal bays free
>
> Get a PCI-X ATTO fibre channel card (the 21 from memory) and an Apple
> fibre RAID array with 7 x 500GB disks. That'll give 2.6GB after
> formatting. That'll rock.
>
> Nick
>
> "Darren" <Darren@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:5DA3BEF5-B5ED-419F-8D9A-2B0DA20D5ABD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>I really want more space for my DB then 146GB if mirrored. I will be
>>running
>> Enterprise with about 300 users which will grow to about 500. If I
>> get another 2 X 146 GB drives will this work OK?
>>
>> The server is dual 3GHz + 2GIG RAM
>>
>>> C mirrored 2 X 146GB for OS and Logs
>>> D Single Drive 36GB for pagefile
>>> E RAID5 3 X 146GB for DB
>>
>> Thanks for your suggestions
>>
>> "Nick Gillott [MVP]" wrote:
>>
>>> Depends on no of users, mail flow and so on.
>>>
>>> Your way gives you 17GB useable for the OS, apps and log files. So
>>> if you get about 12GB of email movement between backup, you are on
>>> your back.
>>>
>>> My first thought would be to go cap in hand to the Boss for the
>>> upgrade of
>>> another disk to 146GB.
>>>
>>> C mirrored 18GB for OS and apps
>>> D mirrored 146GB for database
>>> E mirrored 146GB for logs and page
>>>
>>> Yes, that means mirroring the pagefile, but you are improving the
>>> spindles
>>> available to the database and if you have enough RAM you shouldn't
>>> be paging
>>> much.
>>>
>>> Nick
>>>
>>> "Darren" <Darren@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:EAA50FC9-E57F-45A3-97ED-FC78A747A16B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> > Microsoft suggest the following drive configuration for 6 drives:
>>> >
>>> > http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/exchange/guides/E2k3Pe
>>> > rf_ScalGuide/c1af1369-c3cd-41ca-90f3-372e02ea30e4.mspx
>>> >
>>> > So my setup would look like this:
>>> >
>>> > RAID5 (drive C - 3 x 146GB) ; OS and database
>>> > RAID1 (drive D - 2 X 18GB) ; log files
>>> > No RAID (drive E - 1 X 18GB) ; pagefile
>>> >
>>> > To me it would seem better to keep OS and DB on separate drives,
>>> > I'm thinking of going this route:
>>> >
>>> > RAID1 (drive C - 2 X 18GB) ; OS and log files
>>> > RAID5 (drive D - 3 x 146GB) ; database
>>> > No RAID (drive E - 1 X 18GB) ; pagefile
>>> >
>>> > What are your thoughts?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
.
- References:
- Re: Exchange setup with 6 drives
- From: Nick Gillott [MVP]
- Re: Exchange setup with 6 drives
- From: Nick Gillott [MVP]
- Re: Exchange setup with 6 drives
- Prev by Date: Re: Frontend & backend servers mail
- Next by Date: Best approach for my configuration to migrate to 2003 from NT4 and
- Previous by thread: Re: Exchange setup with 6 drives
- Next by thread: Re: Exchange setup with 6 drives
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading