RE: Raid Config for Ex 2007
- From: TC-UK <TCUK@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 08:18:01 -0800
1. Exchange 2007 Ent support 50 storage groups and 50 databases. A Storage
group is the transaction point of interest. Thus 9 databases across 9 storage
groups allows the best transactional speeds. However the advantage of
seperate luns for each storage group is unlikely to be an option given your
hardware config. Taking mailbox single instance storage and other more
operationla factors I would suggest 4 Storage groups, with the 9 databases
split evenly across.
2. Exchange 2007 is not as I/O intensive as Exchange 200x therefore given
your environment I would recommend 2*Raid 5
3. I would recommend a single Raid 10
4. I do not think there is a requirement or benefit
5. Given the I/O reduction of exchange 2007 and the fact you have 16GB of
memory means that the hardware can be of a normal spec and the rule of 70+%
of hardware being spent on Storage for Exchange shouldn't be true these days.
The above config will let you have 4 SG's split evenly across two Raid 5
arrays, these SG's will then share 1 raid 10 log drive which I think is fine
given the environment. The only points are interest are:
Have you considered using the exchange 2007 edge server role?
Does your hardware accomodate you leveraging the replication features of
Exchange
Are you going to have any dedicated Client Acccess Servers?
"Rames" wrote:
We’re looking at migrating from Ex 2003 to Ex 2007. Our current configuration.
performs reasonably well. It consists of following configuration on each of
two servers:
~1000 users
~30 GB data (average 20MB limits)
3 storage groups
9 databases + 1 public folder
4GB of memory
Dual Processors
OS - Raid 1
SMTP Queue – Raid 1
Logs – Raid 1
Data – Raid 5 (7 x 15k rpm drives)
We have a Barracuda SPAM filter, and an OWA server.
We have the following hardware for replacement:
~1000 users
~300 GB data (assuming 100MB limits)
9 storage groups (or should they be consolidated?)
9 databases + 1 public folder (or should they be consolidated?)
16GB of memory
Dual Qual processors
OS – Raid 1
We’ll have a Barrcuda SPAM filter, an OWA server and a Hub Transport
server.
For Ex 2007 we have 10 x 300GB, 15k rpm drives (data) and 4 x 73GB, 15k rpm
drives (logs). I can imagine one of the following options (for data and one
for logs) for configuring these drives:
Data:
5 x Raid 1
1 x Raid 5
2 x Raid 5
1 x Raid 10
Logs:
2 x Raid 1
1 x Raid 10
1) Should the storage groups and/or databases be consolidated so there are
fewer?
2) Which data configuration is best for performance? I know generally
speaking Raid 10 will perform better for a single database but I don’t know
what to expect when we throw multiple databases on there.
3) Which log configuration is best for performance? Same comment as #2.
4) Is there any benefit to partitioning the data drives such that each
partition supports a single database possibly reducing fragmentation on each
database?
5) Is there a better approach given our environment?
- References:
- Raid Config for Ex 2007
- From: Rames
- Raid Config for Ex 2007
- Prev by Date: Installer Broken Images, Errors, Unable to Start Installation
- Next by Date: Re: Advice
- Previous by thread: Raid Config for Ex 2007
- Next by thread: Re: Raid Config for Ex 2007
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
