Re: Store.exe runing @ 100% CPU
- From: "Steve Buckley" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 05:50:59 +0700
Leythos - you didn't read the one line typo correction did you?
The above configuration is running on our current server, except we only
have 1 pair of disks in RAID 1 with the logs and data on the same volume.
Yes you can buy several thousand bucks worth of disk and controllers but
this is only a 125 user system, a TX2000 and some standard 200GB ATA hard
drives will work adequately (if not spectacularly.)
Once again appologies for the typo in the original post - I meant RAID 1
(Data Mirror)
"Leythos" <void@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d5824ee6e77c76f989ab0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> In article <#owJ#jolFHA.3312@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> says...
>> If you are running on a clone PC get an ATA RAID card and you will find
>> everything is way quicker - I recommend the Promise Technologies 2000TX
>> or
>> similar for about US$100.
>
> I agree with this, any RAID controller, ATA or SATA would be good for a
> small server.
>
>> Use all 4 disk/channels to create 2 x RAID 0 sets and use one for your
>> O/S
>> and log files and the other for your EDB files.
>
> Bad method - RAID 0 will crap out when any single drive dies - this
> means you have twice the risk. RAID-1 should be used for a server where
> you want protection against hardware failure, RAID-0 should only be used
> with RAID 1+0 setups. Do not use RAID-0 on any mission critical system.
>
>> You will find this configuration flies for Exchange (and SQL.)
>> The CPU will no longer be hit for any damage except on Virus scanning and
>> complex queiries.
>
> Actually, some of the cheap ATA/SATA RAID controllers still use CPU
> time, it's best to get one that specifically has it's own processor and
> one that has it's own CACHE RAM. The Promise SX6000 with 128MB of RAM
> makes a nice IDE/ATA RAID controller and supports up to 6 drives that
> you can hot-swap (yes, you can hot swap normal IDE drives with this
> controller).
>
> As for ideal configurations:
>
> Disk 0: Single Partition - MIRROR with Disk 1: Drive C
> Disk 1: Single Partition - MIRROR with Disk 0: Drive C
>
> Disk 2: Single Partition - RAID-5 (disks 2,3,4,5,6): Drive D
> Disk 3: Single Partition - RAID-5 (disks 2,3,4,5,6): Drive D
> Disk 4: Single Partition - RAID-5 (disks 2,3,4,5,6): Drive D
> Disk 5: Single Partition - RAID-5 (disks 2,3,4,5,6): Drive D
> Disk 6: Single Partition - RAID-5 (disks 2,3,4,5,6): Drive D
>
> Disk 7: Single Partition - MIRROR with Disk 8: Drive E
> Disk 8: Single Partition - MIRROR with Disk 7: Drive E
>
> Disk 9: Single Drive or External Drive: Drive F
>
> Drive set C - OS only
> Drive set D - Applications and data
> Drive set E - transaction logs and circular logs
> Drive F - daily online backups
>
> If you don't have room for 9 drives, you can use the SX6000 to setup a
> MIRROR and then RAID5 and do the OS/Logs on the MIRROR and then the
> data/apps on the RAID 5, so you can do it with 6 (using a 4 drive R5)
>
> RAID-0 is bad for servers that need to stay running.
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> spam999free@xxxxxxxxxx
> remove 999 in order to email me
.
- References:
- Re: Store.exe runing @ 100% CPU
- From: Steve Buckley
- Re: Store.exe runing @ 100% CPU
- Prev by Date: Re: Swapping email accounts
- Next by Date: IPM_SUBTREE folders visible in Public Folders
- Previous by thread: Re: Store.exe runing @ 100% CPU
- Next by thread: Re: Out Of Office replies from specific Users
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
