RE: Disk access performance

Tech-Archive recommends: Fix windows errors by optimizing your registry

Hi Mike,

Interesting document but it was not was I was looking for. We have no
influence on how the layout or the design of the SAN should look like. We
could only choose the number og SAN devices we wanted.

We choose to go with 9 SAN devices due to the higher flexibility if we
decide to add more nodes later on.

Thanks,
Christian

"Mike Rosado [MSFT]" wrote:

> Hi Christian,
>
> You may want to review the following link:
>
> Disk Subsystem Performance Analysis for Windows
> Updated: March 17, 2004
>
> Pasted from <http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/storage/subsys_perf.mspx>
>
>
> --------------------
> Hope this helps,
> Mike Rosado
> Windows 2000 MCSE + MCDBA
> Microsoft Enterprise Platform Support
> Windows NT/2000/2003 Cluster Technologies
>
> ====================================================
> When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
> that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
> ====================================================
>
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
> <http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> > From: <Christian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: Disk access performance
> > Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 14:51:05 -0800
> >
> > Hiya,
> >
> > we are consolidating a bunch of file servers into one virtual server. We
> > have 9 departments, which access their data through a file share on the
> > virtual server.
> >
> > All data will be placed on a very fast and redundant SAN and all access
> are
> > through multi path I/O fibre cannel cards. The departments only access
> their
> > own data.
> >
> > We are not sure what would be the optimal placement of the data; should
> we
> > place all data on the same SAN disk or should we place data on a SAN disk
> per
> > department?
> >
> > We like the idea of placing the data on the same disk since it will be
> > easier to manage, but are wondering if there are any performance issues
> to
> > consider depending on how we place the data?
> >
> > Any insights and suggestions will be creatly appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Christian
> >
>
>
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How to verify/fix High Disk Read Latencies in Exch2003 ?
    ... Exchange production servers are, the SAN is an EMC CX600. ... >>> current log file on disk and continues until data in the log buffers ... Comingling occurs whe two or more LUNs reside ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.admin)
  • RE: Disk access performance
    ... very few customers should have single large volumes. ... > influence on how the layout or the design of the SAN should look like. ... >> Disk Subsystem Performance Analysis for Windows ... >>> we are consolidating a bunch of file servers into one virtual server. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.clustering)
  • Re: HP EVA4000 / IBM DS4300 / EMC CX3-20/40
    ... disk array with the virtual raidsets on top. ... So, the system admin, and the DBAs had to create and manage lots of ... separate LUNs and *manually* manage the performance among them to ... applications on the SAN. ...
    (comp.arch.storage)
  • Re: How to verify/fix High Disk Read Latencies in Exch2003 ?
    ... Do they all map LUNs to your SAN? ... > wondering how the disk could be highly utilized if I have no users ... >> following formulats for the RAID type of each LUN: ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.admin)
  • Re: Storage Area Network
    ... Do you expect less or more space to be taken if you take a backup via ... You did remember to put Exchange logging into ... Backup to disk is a great option for many situations. ... The Cariion SAN system is fine and is a lowcost system. ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.connectivity)