Re: Exchange 2007 - multiple RAID controllers
- From: "John Fullbright" <fjohn@donotspamnetappdotcom>
- Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 10:09:08 -0800
A decade ago it wasn't that hard to max out the 20M to 40M bandwidth of a
single channel with small block IO. With today's hardware (320M), It'll
never happen with Exchange.
"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: Removing old Ex2K3 Server
- Next by Date: Re: Relay Mail to Non-Exchange Mailbox for same domain
- Previous by thread: Re: Exchange 2007 - multiple RAID controllers
- Next by thread: Can We trust this install? Cannot Send Email Co-Exist
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
