Re: questions on partitions for exchange

If your backup is using the exchange backup API, then there isn't much
impact either way. If you use snapshots, then the one large array approach
could impact the granularity of backup/restore.

The partitioning of the boot volume is actually a good idea. It's
generally a good idea because most of the server vendors use an automated
build process that starts with a FAT partition and then converts it to NTFS.
This results in an allocation unit size of 512 bytes. If you put the
pagefile there, each paging IO will be split by the NTFS driver into
multiple 512 byte IOs, reducing performance. When you create an additional
partition on the drive and format it NTFS, the allocation unit size is a
default of 4K unless you select otherwise.

The second local RAID 1 with the SMTP is fine if this is not a cluster. If
this is a cluster, you need to put the smtp directories on a shared drive.
Otherwise, every time you failover messages will mysteriously dissappear and
mysteriously reappear some time later when you fail back.

With 2000 mailboxes, what percentage are concurrent. Is this a typical 9 to
5 shop or do your company's employees work in shifts? If we assume 100%
concurrency, about .5 IOPS/user is pushing it. For a 10K SCSI drive use 85
IOPS/spindle. For 15K, use 125 IOPS/spindle at a 20ms target response time.

With a 3:1 read write ratio:

read performance = P*N = 8*125 = 1000 IOPS
write performance = P*N/2 = 8*125/2 =500 IOPS

applying the read/write ration 1000 *.75 = 750 + 500*.25 = 125 = 875 IOPS.

"Optimizing Storage for Exchange Server 2003" give the following message
rate/IOPS information. I really prefere to measure in that it's way to easy
to come up short when you make assumptions, but in light of the lack of
measurement, at least it's a starting point:

"The following table lists mailbox profiles that can be used as a guideline
for capacity planning of Exchange mailbox servers. These profiles represent
mailbox access for the "average user" Outlook (or MAPI-based) client within
the organization.

User profiles and corresponding usage patterns
User Type Database Volume IOPS Send/Receive per day Mailbox Size
Light
.5
20 sent/50 received
50 MB

Average
.75
30 sent/75 received
100 MB

Heavy
1.0
40 sent/100 received
200 MB

Large
1.5
60 sent/150 received
500 MB


"

Unless there is a compelling reason to use a lower concurrency rate (a
formal 3 shift work force for example) I prefer to stay on the conservative
side and assume 100% concurreny. It's a common sizing mistake to assume a
concurency rate that is overly optimistic and end up with performance
issues. I would rather err on the conservative side.

John

"Lenny" <Lenny@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:847891AF-E0B4-4430-8C8D-6FF87C32320C@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thank you so much. You advice really helps. Appreciated it.

I answered your questions below. Please advise...


Also, one more silly question:

Because of the limitation on the number of physical drives, on the server
which is a HP DL 585, I will probably have to make the 4 internal hard
drive
into two RAID 1 - of course each has two drives:
1. one RAID 1 will be partitioned into C and D - C for OS and D for
paging
file and Exchange binary
2. The second RAID 1 will be partitioned into E drive which will have the
SMTP queue installed.
Is this OK, please advise.



1. )+1 should be 0+1 (sticky shift key)

I thought so.

2. How do you do your backups?

Backup was done the following way: the MSA 30 enclosure is connected to a
HP DL585 through a SmartArray controller 6402 so the speed from DL585 to
MSA
30 is Ultra320 which is 320 MB/s. Then there will be a HBA card installed
onto the DL585 and connect the server to a Fibre Channel switch and a
backup
unit which is a backup library. Do you any problem here?


3. Content indexing - unless you really need it, disable it. If you do
enable it, schedule for off peak times at low priority.

Thank you very much.

3. The SMTP dir is local by default. How much traffic do you have?

There will be about 2000 mailbox worth traffic loaded on this setup. I
would say, on average, users send about 10-20 email a day, receive about
50-100 a day. I am not answering your question in IOPS since I do not
have
this server yet. But I hope you got the picture.

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







"John Fullbright [MVP]" wrote:

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

  • Backup strategy
    ... > I have a Windows2000 Pro desktop, and I created a backup job to daily ... Partition one of the drives into 4 partitions. ... in your mirror hard disk as your only hard disk to make sure that it boots ...
    (microsoft.public.win2000.general)
  • Re: Western Digital "MyBook" as RAID?
    ... Now the docs say you can configure even this 1 HD version for RAID although that only creates two mirrors on the same disk. ... If you just like the idea of duplicate files why not get two Network attached HD and schedule a script to copy files from the "working" drive to the backup drive on a nightly/weekly basis? ... The nice thing about this WD LAN drive is that it allows a connection of one USB drives. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: RAID, SCHMAID.......
    ... And risky to change it later without a full image backup. ... with & in the system images so I know exactly what's where & done when. ... Pity that just saving the OS partition wont do that, ... to what raid or 10K+ drives or other new drives bring to the table. ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage)
  • Re: another Time Machine thread - still need SuperDuper?
    ... I was thinking of making the partition the same size as the Mac's boot ... experience with Time Machine, and someone who has a similar usage ... Machine backup looks like a complete copy of your data, ... I have two identical hard drives which I'll be using ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)
  • 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)