Re: questions on partitions for exchange

Tech-Archive recommends: Fix windows errors by optimizing your registry

1. )+1 should be 0+1 (sticky shift key)
2. How do you do your backups?
3. Content indexing - unless you really need it, disable it. If you do
enable it, schedule for off peak times at low priority.
3. The SMTP dir is local by default. How much traffic do you have?
4. Unless you have 5.5 or foreign connectors in your org, the MTA isn't
used. You may want to consider disabling it.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;810489



"Lenny" <Lenny@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:000B480F-35A7-4F13-80D9-F21646FE69BD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
OK, you mentioned RAID 1/10/)+1, you mean RAID 1 or 10? What does
that )+1
mean? 0+1?

If I understand your explaination correctly, the first senario is better
if
everything is considered.

Any possible advice on content indexing?

One thing I forgot to mention is the SMTP queue/MTA queue. I will have to
put on another RAID 1 on the local drives inside the server rather than on
MSA 30. Will that affect the performance as supposed to put the RAID 1
for
SMTP queue/MTA queue on MSA 30 (provided there is enough space on MSA 30
for
it)

Thanks.



"John Fullbright [MVP]" wrote:

In both cases, you achieve seperation of the logs and databases. Form a
performance perspective, RAID 1/10/)+1 is the way to go. The difference
between the two scenarios is that in the first the SG databases are on
seperate physicals and in the second they share the same spindles.
Option 1
would assume an even distribution of load between the two storage groups.

In option 2, you could have an assymentric distribution of load between
the
storage groups, at a potential price of granularity of backup/restore
depending on how you do your backups. If you do go this route, make sure
you manually schedule online maintenance so that the two SGs don't
overlap.




"Lenny" <Lenny@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:B26AFD92-9BF0-4589-85AB-5437EE7E4264@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi,

We are in the process of setting up a new Exchange 2003. Highly
appreciate
if someone can provide us with some advice on the following issues:

1. Only going to be two Storage Groups, questions are:
For DB files, going to use RAID 0+1, for Log files, going to use RAID
1.
Total 13 physical drives in a HP MSA 30 enclosure
Senario 1:
for SG1 - two drives will be mirrored into RAID 1 and partitioned into
E
drive for log file, and 4 drives will be RAID 0+1 and partitioned into
F
drive for DB files
for SG 2 - two drives will be mirrored into RAID 1 and partitioned into
G
drive for log file, and 4 drives will be RAID 0+1 and partitioned into
H
drive for DB files

And the last drive will be a hot spare

Senario 2:
- For SG1's Log file: two drives will be mirrored into RAID 1 and
partitioned into E drive for log file,
- For SG2's Log file - two drives will be mirrored into RAID 1 and
partitioned into G drive for log file,
- For DB files in SG1 and SG2: set up all 8 drives into ONE RAID 0+1,
and
partition it into F and H drives, F for SG1's DB files, and H for SG2's
DB
files

And the last drive will be a hot spare

In summary, senario 1 has two RAID 0+1 groups, one for each partition
which
is for each SG's DB files, whereas Senario2 has one RAID 0+1 which is
partitioned into two partitions - one for each SG's DB files.

Is there any difference in terms of performance between these two
setups?
Or in reality, there is no difference or not worth considering the
difference?

2. The paper named "optimizing Storeage for Exchange 2003 Server"
talked
a
lot about set up one partition for SG DB files, one for Log file, one
for
SMTP queues.... And Content Indexing is also mentioned. But do we
really
need to put Content Indexing into its own Partition, say, I drive which
is
a
RAID 1. If we do not need do this, where do we put Content Indexing?
Put
it
in the partition where SMTP resides, or the partition where Exchange
binary
resides?

These are the burning questions we have, please advise.

Thank you so much.


Lenny






.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: RAID 1 drives and mirroring of data for backup question
    ... I reread the message and his RAID isn't ... > OP was that the 2nd partition existed, it just had nothing on it. ... > "Frank McCallister SBS MVP" wrote in message ... >>>I have a question about RAID 1 drives. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: questions on partitions for exchange
    ... If your backup is using the exchange backup API, ... build process that starts with a FAT partition and then converts it to NTFS. ... The second local RAID 1 with the SMTP is fine if this is not a cluster. ... Because of the limitation on the number of physical drives, ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.setup)
  • Re: A Problem With Replacing a Windows XP Computer Systems Disk Drives
    ... transfer a raid array from one set of drives to another. ... OS: Windows XP Home ... Four IDE 250GB drives in two Raid 0 Arrays ... Using the software provide by Seagate to copy the boot partition was ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware)
  • Re: RAID, partitioning and imaging
    ... Any partition created will be mirrored / identical in your second raid drive ... You are aware that raid 1 is a mirror?, and as such you should be able to ... mirror, and so the problem would exist on both drives, so ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Partition Question
    ... I'm also setting up a SBS Server but with SAS 6 drives. ... Is there any performance benfits in having the OS + Exchange & SQL Logs on ... RAID 1 and Exchange/SQL/user Data on RAID 5? ... I am planning a partition scheme that looks like this: ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)