Re: Exchange 2007 - multiple RAID controllers
- From: "Rui Silva [MVP]" <rjms1808(nospam4me)@hotmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 17:23:00 -0000
For resiliency keep databases and logs on different physical volumes.
For performance, you could use different controllers.
If you're planning to install Exchange 2007 and don't have any special needs regarding high-availability I would say that you can go ahead with just one controller.
--
Rui Silva
MVP Windows Server System - Exchange Server
Blog "subject: exchange", http://msmvps.com/ehlo
"Fred Bulger" <Fred.Bulger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:ehccDrzZIHA.5792@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Traditionally, for Exchange, it was advised to keep database and log files on separate physical volumes. Many people also recommended using different RAID controllers for each. Now it seems that vendors such as HP and Dell don't support a configuration with multiple RAID controllers - except for high-end servers. The entry-level and mid-level systems support a single SAS RAID controller. The reps maintain that secondary controllers are not required in today's configurations. I'm not sure how the current technology removes the benefit provided by redundant controllers!?.
I'm wondering what opinions are on this. Should we still keep log files and databases on different controllers? I've looked for Microsoft's recommnedations regarding this. If such a document exists, please point me in the right direction.
Regards...
-Fred.
- References:
- Exchange 2007 - multiple RAID controllers
- From: Fred Bulger
- Exchange 2007 - multiple RAID controllers
- Prev by Date: Re: 2nd Exchange Server 2007 in organisation
- Next by Date: Re: Moving Exchange server behind ISA
- Previous by thread: Exchange 2007 - multiple RAID controllers
- Next by thread: Re: Exchange 2007 - multiple RAID controllers
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|