Exchange Server Forums

Exchange 2007 Infrastructure Questions

Users viewing this topic: none

Logged in as: Guest

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Microsoft Exchange 2007] >> Installation >> Exchange 2007 Infrastructure Questions

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Exchange 2007 Infrastructure Questions - 24.Jun.2010 11:22:09 AM

emerrike

Posts: 6
Joined: 24.Jun.2010
Status: offline

I am working on a transition plan to move from Exchange 2003 to Exchange 2007. I want to make sure I design the infrastructure so that we get good performance and high availability. We have 797 mailbox users. I plan on deploying 2 CAS/Hub Transport colocated servers and 2 mailbox servers. The CAS/Hub Transport servers will use NLB and the mailbox servers will use CCR. When I use the Exchange 2007 Mailbox Storage Calculator it suggests that I create 11 databases with 87 mailboxes each and 3 LUNS per server. It is grouping storage groups 1-4 into one LUN, storage groups 5-8 in another LUN and storage groups 9-11 on a third LUN. Here are my questions:

1. Shouldn't you create 2 separate LUNs for each storage group? 1 for the database and 1 for the logs? Why is this suggesting only 3 LUNs?

2. If I want to create a database for each of my departments I would need 21 databases instead of the recommended 11. Will it cause a performance impact if I create more databases instead of fewer?

Thanks in advance.

Post #: 1

Featured Links*

RE: Exchange 2007 Infrastructure Questions - 24.Jun.2010 12:44:34 PM

John Weber

Posts: 1236
Joined: 20.Apr.2005
From: Portland, Oregon
Status: offline

I would not use CCR. I would take a serious look at E2010 DAG to achieve your redundancy/HA goal.

_____________________________

John Weber [Lync MVP] http://tsoorad.blogspot.com

(in reply to emerrike)

Post #: 2

RE: Exchange 2007 Infrastructure Questions - 24.Jun.2010 12:51:40 PM

mark@mvps.org

Posts: 6811
Joined: 9.Jun.2004
From: Philadelphia PA
Status: offline

I think it's suggesting you use 14 LUNs per server, not 3. 11 LUNs for databases and, yes, 3 for the logs. That's fine and is all down to the logic in the spreadsheet. If you want to use 22 LUNs then fine, go for it. In actual fact, if you're going to do that you're going to use 24 LUNs. Two small LUNs with drive letters as mount point roots and then 11 mount points in each. It's entirely down to you how you do that. If you're not expecting significant expansion I'd go with the 14 LUNs and drive letters, but you're borderline.

And then there's JW. Yes, 2010 and the DAG would be far better for you, if you can. The LUN answers are unchanged.

_____________________________

Mark Arnold (Exchange MVP)
List Moderator

(in reply to emerrike)

Post #: 3

RE: Exchange 2007 Infrastructure Questions - 24.Jun.2010 1:47:54 PM

emerrike

Posts: 6
Joined: 24.Jun.2010
Status: offline

Thanks for the response. Exchange 2010 isn't an option for us so I am stuck with 2007. I have one more question....

Should I use additional storage groups for public folders and journaling or combine them into one of the existing databases that the calculator is recommending? I didn't know if the calculator took public folders into account or not.

(in reply to mark@mvps.org)

Post #: 4

RE: Exchange 2007 Infrastructure Questions - 24.Jun.2010 1:53:53 PM

de.blackman

Posts: 3542
Joined: 4.Apr.2005
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

I would recommend to have a separate server for journaling just so as to improve user experience and performance of the mailbox role. How large are your public folders? if your organization heavily uses public folders, then place them on their own LUN.

_____________________________

Ibrahim Benna - Microsoft Exchange MVP
Forum Moderator
Navantis
@IbrahimBenna

(in reply to emerrike)

Post #: 5

RE: Exchange 2007 Infrastructure Questions - 24.Jun.2010 2:03:41 PM

emerrike

Posts: 6
Joined: 24.Jun.2010
Status: offline

We have a separate server for journaling. We use Symantec Enterprise Vault which is why we can't go to 2010 yet. We have a very small public folder store so I'm guessing it's ok to put that in a storage group with users, right?

(in reply to de.blackman)

Post #: 6

RE: Exchange 2007 Infrastructure Questions - 24.Jun.2010 2:19:07 PM

de.blackman

Posts: 3542
Joined: 4.Apr.2005
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

If the public folder is not going to leave a large footprint on the LUN, preferably one with very small databases, then you can place them together on the same LUN.

Symantec Enterprise Vault still does not support Exchange 2010?? A little late in the game i'd say!

_____________________________

Ibrahim Benna - Microsoft Exchange MVP
Forum Moderator
Navantis
@IbrahimBenna

(in reply to emerrike)

Post #: 7

RE: Exchange 2007 Infrastructure Questions - 24.Jun.2010 2:21:03 PM

emerrike

Posts: 6
Joined: 24.Jun.2010
Status: offline

Symantec is saying that they plan to release a 2010 supported version in Q2, which begins next week. But they don't have an estimate of 'when' during Q2. My boss is eager to get exchange upgraded. Now I don't know if I should go to 2007 or wait it out with Symantec and go to 2010. Ugh.

(in reply to de.blackman)

Post #: 8

RE: Exchange 2007 Infrastructure Questions - 24.Jun.2010 2:30:16 PM

mark@mvps.org

Posts: 6811
Joined: 9.Jun.2004
From: Philadelphia PA
Status: offline

You don't have a choice. You're using CCR so you have to have a dedicated SG for PFs. For the journaling, yes. Separate SG.

That, if they're outside of the numbers earlier should tip you into mount points. Cleaner and easier to manage.

_____________________________

Mark Arnold (Exchange MVP)
List Moderator

(in reply to emerrike)

Post #: 9

RE: Exchange 2007 Infrastructure Questions - 24.Jun.2010 2:32:58 PM

de.blackman

Posts: 3542
Joined: 4.Apr.2005
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

Technically speaking, I have to agree with Mark and John! You will have alot more features with Exchange 2010 and a much easier deployment and control of high availability using DAG. Administration of Exchange 2010 is alot more simpler with the role based access control (RBAC)...Personally speaking, Exchange 2010 rocks!!

Exchange 2010 has its own built-in archiving solution. In RTM, unfortunately archiving will be done to the same store but with the release of SP1, Microsoft has changed that around so you can have your archived data on a different store! In addition, users can actually access their archive mailbox from Outlook 2010 or even from OWA! SP1 is currently available in BETA form on the net but the full release is scheduled for september. Obviously, the decision to chose when to move and to what is yours (and your management!).

_____________________________

Ibrahim Benna - Microsoft Exchange MVP
Forum Moderator
Navantis
@IbrahimBenna

(in reply to emerrike)

Post #: 10

RE: Exchange 2007 Infrastructure Questions - 24.Jun.2010 2:47:38 PM

emerrike

Posts: 6
Joined: 24.Jun.2010
Status: offline

Sold! I'll do anything to get away from Symantec Enterprise Vault. Thanks :)

(in reply to de.blackman)

Post #: 11

RE: Exchange 2007 Infrastructure Questions - 25.Jun.2010 4:04:06 AM

jutlak

Posts: 52
Joined: 9.May2005
From: London
Status: offline

We have the same setup, we have 17 LUNs (8 DBs and 8 LOG LUNs) plus Mountpoint LUNs. We did this after looking at MS and NetApp Best practises. But afterwards NetApps informed us that we misunderstood their scenario of Best Practises option we followed. They suggested that we should go for all logs in 1 place to get better performance.

Also another thing we see is the time it's taking to perform a snapshot takes long, but that's because all our logs are separate but we are looking at reviewing the NetApp design.

(in reply to emerrike)

Post #: 12

RE: Exchange 2007 Infrastructure Questions - 25.Jun.2010 5:54:03 AM

mark@mvps.org

Posts: 6811
Joined: 9.Jun.2004
From: Philadelphia PA
Status: offline

As an employee of NetApp (a CSE in MS solutions) I can tell you that the design is slightly different and your case isn't strictly applicable.
In your case the suggestion that you host all the logs on one volume will have been around LUN enumeration when doing snapshots. It's a faster process to run 9 Flexvols than it is to run 16. (Actually if you had 8 DBs you'd have had 18 LUNs (8 + 8 + 2) rather than 17 - or at least should have)

Make sure you get hold of SnapDrive 6.3 as soon as it comes out. We have made significant improvements to the logic.

The idea of having fewer LUNs and FlexVols is a very good idea.

_____________________________

Mark Arnold (Exchange MVP)
List Moderator

(in reply to jutlak)

Post #: 13

RE: Exchange 2007 Infrastructure Questions - 25.Jun.2010 7:32:17 AM

jutlak

Posts: 52
Joined: 9.May2005
From: London
Status: offline

Thats what we thought, we have 8DB's + 8 LOGS + vol for Quorum + a volume for where the MountPoints have been located) so its 18 Volumes.
1 LUN per Volume (FlexVols being used)

The SnapInfo area is not on a separate Volume/ LUN but its within each DB Volume. so now the question is is this design affecting performance - we know its taking alot of space depending on No. of SS kept, or should we have a Voume which caters for all SnapInfo for all Stores in this one big Volume.

(in reply to mark@mvps.org)

Post #: 14

RE: Exchange 2007 Infrastructure Questions - 25.Jun.2010 7:39:12 AM

mark@mvps.org

Posts: 6811
Joined: 9.Jun.2004
From: Philadelphia PA
Status: offline

Snapinfo better not be in the DB LUN. It needs to be in the transaction logs LUN(s). SME uses NTFS Hardlinks to simply re-home the backed up logs from the Exchange directory to the NetApp directory. If snapinfo is anywhere else you will experience more IO than necessary.

Snapinfo directory must be on the logs LUN. Period.

_____________________________

Mark Arnold (Exchange MVP)
List Moderator

(in reply to jutlak)

Post #: 15

RE: Exchange 2007 Infrastructure Questions - 25.Jun.2010 8:15:45 AM

jutlak

Posts: 52
Joined: 9.May2005
From: London
Status: offline

Sorry, my apologies, yes the SnapInfo is in the logs LUN, cause as you say, it moves the logs here. So, going back to what I really meant to say was is it better to create a Volume for SnapInfo which would cater for all logs for all the Stores instead of what we have ?

Also, when a SS happens say at 10:00, the SS still is running at around 11:00 because its busy going through the DB/Logs one after another, would putting all the logs in 1 LUN help speed up this ?

(in reply to mark@mvps.org)

Post #: 16

RE: Exchange 2007 Infrastructure Questions - 25.Jun.2010 8:22:44 AM

mark@mvps.org

Posts: 6811
Joined: 9.Jun.2004
From: Philadelphia PA
Status: offline

Good on the logs and Snapinfo location.
Do not create a new LUN for Snapinfo otherwise you will increase your IO. Simply increase the size of your logs LUN(s) using SnapDrive. That's the right and best practice.

Now, a Snapshot should not (and does not) run for that long. What I suspect you're doing is verification, which will take a while per store. Don't do verifications on backups you take during the day. That way you can backup the entire server in about five minutes or so. Do a backup and verification at (say) 8 or 9pm. Putting the logs in one volume would have no effect because the verification is working on a FlexClone (probably) of the stores.

_____________________________

Mark Arnold (Exchange MVP)
List Moderator

(in reply to jutlak)

Post #: 17

RE: Exchange 2007 Infrastructure Questions - 25.Jun.2010 8:45:29 AM

jutlak

Posts: 52
Joined: 9.May2005
From: London
Status: offline

We do a daily verification of the last SS of the day at 11:00pm, if i see the report of the SS it shows that it does the SS of each DB and logs i.eDB1, then 2 then 3 etc. and hence takes over 1 hour, and the logs show that - which now i am guessing isnt right.

when we were on Exchange 2003 Sp2 with same amount of users but different setup i.e. w had 4 DB's on same LUN which had all logs for these DB's in a separate LUN, the SS took no more than 6mins, but now its over an hour.

(in reply to mark@mvps.org)

Post #: 18

RE: Exchange 2007 Infrastructure Questions - 25.Jun.2010 8:51:43 AM

mark@mvps.org

Posts: 6811
Joined: 9.Jun.2004
From: Philadelphia PA
Status: offline

Send me a zip file with some of the backup logs. Email to marnold at netapp dot com.
You are probably using eseutil when what you should be doing (it's a reg edit and tickbox) is checksgfiles. We can see that from the logs. Sometimes the older version of SME gets confused. You should try to go to SDW6.2 (6.3 soon) and SME6.

_____________________________

Mark Arnold (Exchange MVP)
List Moderator

(in reply to jutlak)

Post #: 19

RE: Exchange 2007 Infrastructure Questions - 25.Jun.2010 10:58:47 AM