Re: Hardware + Exchange 2003

John,

Thank you. I will put the log files on the mirrored 36gb drives, and the
operating system and page file on the mirrored 146 gb drives. Would it be
best to have a separate partition for the page file? And is the 15k rpms on
the drives the way to go, or would the 10k be enough? I'll do the hardware
raid config (the F6 on boot) with a smart array 6402 controller, which I
think will address the 4k allocation unit size?

Thanks again for your help. I read up on iops and my head is still spinning.

"John Fullbright" wrote:

> You want to isolate the logs. From a user visibility perspective, the logs
> are the most sensitive aspect of Exchange IO.
>
> The problem with leaving the page file (or the temp directory for that
> matter) on the OS patition really comes down to the way the OS partition was
> created and what the allocation unit size is. If the allocation unit size
> is 512 bytes, each time you page that's 8 IOs. If the allocation unit size
> is 4K, each time you page that's 1 IO. If you build the server with an
> automated process that converts a FAT volume to NTFS, then I wouldn't want
> to put the page file, or anything else for that matter, there. I would
> recommend building the server through a process that results in a 4K
> allocation unit size as the best alternative.
>
>
> "ces" <ces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:BE650DFD-6138-41E5-A588-EAF4AD862F5B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Hi there
> >
> > We too are planning to move our 2000 exchange server to 2003, on a new
> > box.
> > Also with 130 users, similar situation. I planning on a Proliant ML370
> > g4,
> > dual processors, 4 gb memory, with 4 146.8 drives, Raid 0+1 for the
> > database,
> > and 2 146.8 drives, Raid 1 for the os and logs, and 2 36.4 gb drives Raid
> > 1
> > for the pagefile. Is it more advantageous to have the logs separate than
> > the
> > pagefile? And the speed of the drives, is 15k rpm significantly better
> > than
> > the 10k?
> >
> > Thanks for any input.
> >
> > "John Fullbright" wrote:
> >
> >> Build the server.
> >>
> >> Interrupt the boot sequesce to go to the RAID setup and setup your
> >> arrays.
> >> Put the perc driver on a floppy, then boot from the windows CD to do the
> >> install. Hit F6 and insert the floppy when needed. After you're done,
> >> use
> >> server assist to update all the other drivers.
> >>
> >> I actually work for a storage vendor that does not sell servers. It
> >> always
> >> amazes me that those vendors that do sell both servers and storage always
> >> ship/recommend the worst possible configuration as far as performance is
> >> concerned. When I have the pessimism and paranoia filters running, I
> >> tend
> >> to suspect this is done on purpose in order to sell more hardware. Then
> >> again, I'm not wearing my tin foil hat today, so take it with a grain of
> >> salt.
> >>
> >> Xray mind reads plenty.
> >>
> >>
> >> "PL2" <PL2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> news:383A005F-A4E7-4785-9DEF-6861C5DCC173@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > Hi John,
> >> >
> >> > Have you got any articles that may help me understand your
> >> > calculations.
> >> > I've never seen the formulaes you have used in your example. I don't
> >> > understand what IOPS are? I don't understand what 195 objective is.
> >> >
> >> > So can I still go with RAID 1 for OS and log files and RAID5 for the
> >> > Exchange database? You also mentioned not to use the Dell server
> >> > assist
> >> > CD
> >> > when building the Win 2003 std box. How should I build the server?
> >> >
> >> > regards, PL2
> >> >
> >> > "John Fullbright" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> If you go RAID 1, RAID 1, RAID 0+1 (Perc 4, it took a while to figure
> >> >> out,
> >> >> but yes you can do 0+1, not 10) you should be able to drop down to
> >> >> less
> >> >> expensive 10K drives, and the cost should be in the same ballpark as
> >> >> the
> >> >> solution proposed by the company you commissioned to do the migration.
> >> >> The
> >> >> performance of the DB location would be:
> >> >>
> >> >> write = P*N/2 =85*4/2 =170
> >> >> read = P*N = 85*4 =340
> >> >>
> >> >> calculating the RAID 1 write penalty with a 2:1 ratio:
> >> >>
> >> >> (340*.66) + (170*.33) = 224+56 = 280 IOPS.
> >> >>
> >> >> Meets the 195 objective with room for AV, backups, etc.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> "PL2" <PL2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> >> news:ED64C900-3125-40A5-877B-2B7D6E526939@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >> > Hi John,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Many thanks for the quick response. I will show this response to
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > company we have called in to do the migration. The info' I gave you
> >> >> > was
> >> >> > recommended from the company we have commissioned to do the
> >> >> > migration.
> >> >> > I
> >> >> > will get back to you with further info'.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > regards, PL
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "John Fullbright" wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> No, it's not optimal.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> One problem is that you're not isolating the logs. Another problem
> >> >> >> is
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> RAID type you've chosen for the stores. You have 130 users. Let's
> >> >> >> say
> >> >> >> for
> >> >> >> the sake of arguement that each user is measured at 1.5 IOP/user.
> >> >> >> That's
> >> >> >> a
> >> >> >> 195 IOPS requirement for the location of the databases. Now, let's
> >> >> >> calculate the performance of that RAID 5 array:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Read = P*N' = 110*2 = 220
> >> >> >> Write = P*N'/4 = 110*2/4=55
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Let's assume all your users are using Outlook 2003 cached mode and
> >> >> >> your
> >> >> >> read/write ratio is 2:1. Now, let's factor in the write penalty for
> >> >> >> RAID
> >> >> >> 5:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> performance = (220*.66) + (55*.33) = 145 + 18 = 163 IOPS. You're
> >> >> >> coming
> >> >> >> up
> >> >> >> short and have not even factored in IO for backups, replication,
> >> >> >> anti-virus,
> >> >> >> etc.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What if you use RAID 1 for the databases?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> write = P*N/2 = 110
> >> >> >> read = P*N = 220
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> calculate the RAID 1 write penalty:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> performance = (220*.66) + (110*.33) = 145 + 37 = 182 IOPS.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Closer, but still off.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What about:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> A mirror for the OS, a mirror for the logs, and 4 drives in RAID 10
> >> >> >> or
> >> >> >> 0+1
> >> >> >> for the databases?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Also, you mentioned a Perc controller, so this is a Dell. When
> >> >> >> youi
> >> >> >> build
> >> >> >> the server, I would avoid using server assist. If you use server
> >> >> >> assist,
> >> >> >> the allocation unit size on the OS volume will be 512 bytes vs. the
> >> >> >> default
> >> >> >> 4K. In that you plan to put the page file there, this will result
> >> >> >> in
> >> >> >> excessive (8X) IO during paging.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "PL2" <PL2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> >> >> news:149C7066-820D-4313-A341-346E782075BB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >> >> > Hi,
> >> >> >> > I am currently running Exchange 2000 with 130 mailboxes capped at
> >> >> >> > 50MB
> >> >> >> > each.
> >> >> >> > We also use OWA. I am planning an Exchange 2003 move. I am
> >> >> >> > going
> >> >> >> > to
> >> >> >> > purchase a new server for Exchange 2003. Spec is as follows :
> >> >> >> > Xeon 3.4 Ghz/2MB 800 FSB
> >> >> >> > Additional Xeon 3.4 Ghz/2 MB 800FSB cache processor
> >> >> >> > 2 x 73GB SCSI (15,000 RPM)
> >> >> >> > 3 x 146GB SCSI (15,000 RPM)
> >> >> >> > PERC 4/di motherboard embededded RAID (Hardware) 256RAM
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I'm planning to mirror 2 x 73GB and parition to c:\36GB and
> >> >> >> > d:\36GB
> >> >> >> > I plan to install Win 2003 server on c:\
> >> >> >> > On D:\ I plan to install Exchange log files, Exchange app, temp
> >> >> >> > and
> >> >> >> > I386
> >> >> >> > folder.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I will RAID 5 the 3 x 146GB SCSI drives and install the Exchange
> >> >> >> > database.
> >> >> >> > Questions : Is above config' OK? Is 2 x 73GB and 3 x 146GB OK.
> >> >> >> > I
> >> >> >> > plan
> >> >> >> > to
> >> >> >> > order the hardware on 23 Jan 2006. I value your comments, many
> >> >> >> > thanks,
> >> >> >> > PL2
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Where should I put my files, Logs, TEMP, etc?
    ... exch database with seperate controllers and drives. ... Also putting your logs ... > Connecting to Exchange Server now and again ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange2000.admin)
  • Re: Hardware + Exchange 2003
    ... "John Fullbright" wrote: ... >> operating system and page file on the mirrored 146 gb drives. ... >> think will address the 4k allocation unit size? ... >>> recommend building the server through a process that results in a 4K ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.setup)
  • Re: NTBackup requires 18-23 hours to complete.
    ... As far as the Exchange logs, I didn't realize you were only backing up ... I also missed the part where you are backing up to drives in the server. ... server and do a backup to it to see if that improves your backup ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: RAID 0 or RAID 1
    ... >different physical drives as MS recommends really doesn't matter unless your ... logs and databases are placed on different spindles. ... If the dbase drive goes south, you lose not only the store, but the ... >> server is going to run like molasses.... ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.admin)
  • Re: SQL Server DB installation
    ... Hank could place logs on the OS mirrored drives. ... dedicated SQL box so I don't see the point on avoiding the OS mirror. ... SQL Server MVP ...
    (comp.databases.ms-sqlserver)
Loading