Re: HELP with Exchange 2003 RAID

I would still look into whether or not the server has a kit to split the drive cage into 2 separate sets. This will make the arrays physically separate. Otherwise, you are really only using a single channel to manage 2 arrays...

The basic problem with software RAID is that in the event of a drive failure, you have an excellent chance of being unable to recover the data. I had one set up by an "expert" consulting firm. One drive went bad and the entire array was lost (thank the gods for tape backups).

Regards,
Hank Arnold

Mrpush wrote:
Guys,

Thanks for the info.

Actually, this server has a 6 channel SATA Raid controller. I'm just limited with not having a budget for bigger drives or SCSI.

I think I may do the RAID 1/5 as both of you mentioned.

As for software RAID, why is it usless?

Thanks,

MP


"Hank Arnold" wrote:

What manufacturer/model server are you using? I will assume that you are using hardware RAID, since it's pointless to use software RAID....

What RAID Adapter are you using? Ideally, you should have a RAID 1 array for the OS and executables, a RAID 1 array for the log files and a RAID 10 (or RAID 5) for the data stores. Unfortunately, with your setup the best you can do is RAID 1 (40GB) for the OS/executables/log files and RAID 10 (80BG) (or RAID 5 (120GB))for the data stores (RAID 1 and 40GB is just not adequate for the data stores).

One important thing about the arrays is that they should be on separate channels. Otherwise you will lose performance. The best you can do with the setup you have is to split the drive bays into two separate arrays. This requires a kit. Then you need either a RAID adapter with two internal channels or two adapters with one channel.

Regards,
Hank Arnold

Mrpush wrote:
Hello,

I have an Exchange 2003 server with 6 - 7200 RPM 40 GB drives. I have approx 30-50 users who will be using Outlook for e-mail, sharing contacts and calendars etc. potentially some sync with PDA's.

My question is what is my best bet for RAID configuration based on the hardware I have?

There is no budget for faster or larger drives, and I only have 6 bays to work with, non-hot swap, I believe I can RAID 1, 5, and 10 (0+1).

Thanks much,

MP

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: New computer case - 23 bay
    ... I wouldn't mind going down the two separate cases route, ... o Selling your disks and moving to fewer large capacity disks ... What I think you should consider is RAID 6... ... All SCSI 10K drives. ...
    (uk.comp.homebuilt)
  • Re: Review of new design - Please
    ... "Do I need separate physical disks for each of the above sets?" ... The reason to separate them as a best practice is because of I/O types. ... better perforamance and space with RAID 1+0 than you could with just RAID 1. ... RAID 5 typically incurs a write penalty to update parity across the drives, ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.design)
  • Re: SBS 2003 Server Hardware upgrade - keeping RAID 5 data drive array
    ... I'm going to assume for the moment that your external arrays are off ... of a standalone RAID controller that will be moving to the new machine. ... built in RAID controller and are the only new drives in the system. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: AHCI Implementation
    ... Raid 0 is a stripe set, the set has to be created then win installed on it ... second array for the other two drives. ... AHCI and Vista does not have a problem with the partitions on the boot ... and wth two arrays it works just fine with NCQ turned on for both arrays. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.vista.general)
  • Re: software raid: replace failing HD
    ... > wouldn't recommend you try hot swapping normal SCSI drives (50- or ... Feb 1 11:28:02 myservername kernel: md: updating md3 RAID superblock on ... Feb 1 11:28:02 myservername kernel: md3: no spare disk to reconstruct ... arrays. ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
Quantcast