Re: Exchange Disks
- From: "John Fullbright [MVP]" <fjohn@donotspamnetappdotcom>
- Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 16:11:38 -0800
I think it was Paul that asked a very similar question recently. At the
200 user end of the range, you're talking 200 to 400 IOPS. Given this and
assuming 15K FCP dirves:
OS raid 1 mirror
Logs raid 1 mirror
Databases raid 10 (4 disk)
If you're going to make tradeoffs to reduce spindle count, you coukd
consider single drives for the OS and or Logs instead of mirrors. Another
option would be a local mirror and iSCSI attached SAN disks for the
additional LUNs. The IO targets for the drives are :
Logs: 50 IOPS
Database: 400 IOPS
RAID 5 is explicitly excluded because it requires even more spindles to
reach the same performance level. Assuming a 1:1 read:write ratio, a 4
drive RAID 5 array of 15K scsi drives will providew the following:
read performance: 390
write performance: 97.5
mixed performance 243.75
A RAID 10 array consisting of 5 15K FCP spindles performs as follows:
read performance: 520
write performance: 260
mixed performance: 390
That's 60% better performance for RAID 10 in the same number of spindles.
To reach the same level of performance as our 4 drive RAID 10 array, RAID 5
would require 6 spindles (a 50% increase in spindle count)
John
"Mark Arnold [MVP]" <mark@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:moe1q2tbbj4tg1jsjf62um4tteljmjnovf@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 00:06:00 -0800, Steve
<Steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi there,
Is there some sort of rule-of-thumb for setting up disks based on a number
of users? I've seen all sorts of calculators but they seem to be aimed at
1000+ users. I saw another post that said if you have 5 users you can just
install everything on C: Is there some sort of simple recommendation if
you
have 100-200 users?
Thanks in advance.
Steve.
No, there isn't anything like that. There are far too many variables.
Are you using SATA, SAS, SCSI disks, are you connected via Fibre
Channel, are you using a cache in front of the disks, are the disks
7,200, 10,000, 15,000 rpm. It just goes on and on.
Other people might like to post endless links on how those disks
should be set up and the IT Showcase on how Microsoft do their
Exchange 2007 servers from which you might be able to glean some
information. That information would be useless to you given the vast
gulf between the published numbers and yours.
As a suggested configuration for you I would use two disks in RAID1
for the OS and binaries, the same again for the transaction logs and
then either the same again or a small RAID5 for the stores. What
server? Well, the ProLiant ML370 is the right box to work around, be
it from HP or the equivalent from the other server vendors.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Exchange Disks
- From: Steve
- Re: Exchange Disks
- References:
- Re: Exchange Disks
- From: Mark Arnold [MVP]
- Re: Exchange Disks
- Prev by Date: Re: Autodiscover for Exchange 2003 Mailboxes?
- Next by Date: Re: Exchange Disks
- Previous by thread: Re: Exchange Disks
- Next by thread: Re: Exchange Disks
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
