Exchange Server Forums
Forums |
Register |
Login |
My Profile |
Inbox |
RSS 
|
My Subscription |
My Forums |
Address Book |
Member List |
Search |
FAQ |
Ticket List |
Log Out
Partition config OK?
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
Login  | |
|
Partition config OK? - 13.Apr.2010 6:47:47 AM
|
|
|
Dusty_bin
Posts: 10
Joined: 8.Mar.2007
Status: offline
|
Hi Guys,
Could you tell me if my proposed configuration is OK or will it be slow and have no disaster recovery capability.
I have a new server with 6 x 600GB disks.
Disk 1 and Disk 2 will be RAID 1 giving 600GB.
This will be partitioned as: c: OS, Exchange App, Anti Virus (200GB)
d: Logs (200GB)
e: Page File (200GB)
Disk 3, Disk 4, Disk 5, and Disk 6 will be RAID 5 giving 1.8TB.
This will be F: and will be for the Database mailboxes.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Partition config OK? - 13.Apr.2010 6:55:41 AM
|
|
|
mark@mvps.org
Posts: 6811
Joined: 9.Jun.2004
From: Philadelphia PA
Status: offline
|
I would rather go with a three pair of RAID1 systems, given what you have. However, you would lose another 600GB giving you 1.2TB rather than 1.8.
Exchange 2007/2010 has a different read/write ratio so RAID5 isn't the best solution any more.
_____________________________
Mark Arnold (Exchange MVP)
List Moderator
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Partition config OK? - 13.Apr.2010 7:01:28 AM
|
|
|
Dusty_bin
Posts: 10
Joined: 8.Mar.2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mark@mvps.org
I would rather go with a three pair of RAID1 systems, given what you have. However, you would lose another 600GB giving you 1.2TB rather than 1.8.
Exchange 2007/2010 has a different read/write ratio so RAID5 isn't the best solution any more.
hmmm, this needs to be a consideration as we are planning to move to Exch 2007 when we upgrade the DC to 2003. However, our mailboxes are already at 500GB so would be fast approaching 50% of capacity. I read the the database should not exceed more than 50% of storage capacity due to disaster recovery times - is this something I should be concerned about?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Partition config OK? - 13.Apr.2010 7:15:35 AM
|
|
|
mark@mvps.org
Posts: 6811
Joined: 9.Jun.2004
From: Philadelphia PA
Status: offline
|
No. The size of your data should not be so large as to exceed the backup window and/or be so large as to take too long to restore.
i.e. if you were storing the data on a SAN with snapshots you could have huge databases because they would just take seconds to restore but if you have an old, slow tape drive on the back of the server you'd need to keep the databases small. That's the kind of thing to worry about. The whole 50% thing isn't accurate.
If you have 500GB of email you're going to have about three stores, add another makes it four. You could easily have two, 200GB stores on each of the RAID1 sets, 800GB of mail total. No problems there.
_____________________________
Mark Arnold (Exchange MVP)
List Moderator
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Partition config OK? - 13.Apr.2010 7:20:51 AM
|
|
|
Dusty_bin
Posts: 10
Joined: 8.Mar.2007
Status: offline
|
OK, so if I go for 3 pairs of RAID 1, how should I partition them and what should be on each partition?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Partition config OK? - 13.Apr.2010 7:26:25 AM
|
|
|
mark@mvps.org
Posts: 6811
Joined: 9.Jun.2004
From: Philadelphia PA
Status: offline
|
The first set as you described is fine but not strictly necessary since they're all on the same spindles.
Store 1 and 2 on pair 2
Store 3 and 4 on pair 3
_____________________________
Mark Arnold (Exchange MVP)
List Moderator
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Partition config OK? - 13.Apr.2010 7:52:42 AM
|
|
|
Dusty_bin
Posts: 10
Joined: 8.Mar.2007
Status: offline
|
Thanks, we will discuss using 4 stores (currently 3).
I will find out when we might be moving to Exch 2007.
If we are staying with Exch 2003 for a while, is my original config OK?
Thanks for all your advice and quick responses.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Partition config OK? - 13.Apr.2010 9:00:36 AM
|
|
|
troy12n
Posts: 192
Joined: 1.Oct.2007
Status: offline
|
In order to really make a recommendation, you need to give us more info. Like the size of your org, # users, mailbox size limits, etc. I can tell you right off the bat, I would not have bought 600 gig disks and partition them like that.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Partition config OK? - 13.Apr.2010 9:10:59 AM
|
|
|
Dusty_bin
Posts: 10
Joined: 8.Mar.2007
Status: offline
|
100 mailboxes.
no mailbox size limits.
OK, so i know what you wouldn't do...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Partition config OK? - 13.Apr.2010 9:30:13 AM
|
|
|
thehutch
Posts: 87
Joined: 3.Jan.2008
Status: offline
|
Are you looking to use any SAN storage at all or just leverage the local server storage?
The partition structure that you have on the system volume is fine from my perspsective. The extended volume for your Storage Groups can be RAID 5 or 2 RAID 1 volumes. You're not going to take too much of a performance hit one way or the other. At this point it seems to me that the remaining deciding factor is to determine what your needs are pertaining to growth and scalability of your mailbox databases.
With only 100 mailboxes I would go with the RAID 5 array and start imposing quotas on your users. Otherwise you will find that you have ample space to store data on but that any backup or restore opertations are going to be slow and cumbersome. If you do go with RAID 1 volumes then its obvious to state that placing a Storage Group on each volume is a viable configuration choice.
< Message edited by thehutch -- 13.Apr.2010 9:31:37 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Partition config OK? - 13.Apr.2010 9:42:31 AM
|
|
|
Dusty_bin
Posts: 10
Joined: 8.Mar.2007
Status: offline
|
Thanks,
we currently have the mailboxes on a Jetstor NAS but I thought that there may be an increase in performance by bringing them onto the internal disks. Would I be right in thinking this?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Partition config OK? - 13.Apr.2010 10:12:00 AM
|
|
|
mark@mvps.org
Posts: 6811
Joined: 9.Jun.2004
From: Philadelphia PA
Status: offline
|
Actually the move from 2003 to 2007 will reduce the disk hit, not increase it. I'm in agreement with Hutch in that the number of users you have would make the switch between RAID1 and RAID5 pretty marginal. As a best practice it's a RAID1 answer for 2007 (well, RAID10 actually but skip that given your numbers) but you could get away with RAID5 in all probability.
_____________________________
Mark Arnold (Exchange MVP)
List Moderator
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Partition config OK? - 13.Apr.2010 10:23:15 AM
|
|
|
Dusty_bin
Posts: 10
Joined: 8.Mar.2007
Status: offline
|
Are there any pitfalls to my partitions/disks config? I know about keeping logs and database seperate. Is there anything else to consider or does it look OK?
I really appreciate the help here guys.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Partition config OK? - 13.Apr.2010 10:27:20 AM
|
|
|
mark@mvps.org
Posts: 6811
Joined: 9.Jun.2004
From: Philadelphia PA
Status: offline
|
You need to make sure that you're providing your system with enough IOPS to achieve the job. Given the number of mailboxes involved right now I think you'll be perfectly fine but I cannot say for sure because I don't know your environment and I haven't seen your Exchange 2007 sizing calculator (ver 16.9).
_____________________________
Mark Arnold (Exchange MVP)
List Moderator
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Partition config OK? - 13.Apr.2010 2:23:12 PM
|
|
|
troy12n
Posts: 192
Joined: 1.Oct.2007
Status: offline
|
With 100 mailboxes, I dont see how you need 1.3 terrabytes of storage for your mailbox DB('s). If it was my system, I would have had 2x 72g or 146g15k disks raid1 for logs, 2x 300g or 600g 15k disks as raid1 for DB's, then repeat as necessary for an additional storage group/DB as you outgrow what you have. 1 Primary partition for every logical raid disk. It's a bad idea to do multiple partitions on a logical disk IMHO.
You need to enable mailbox quota's and mailbox retention policies right out of the gate, or you are asking for trouble down the road... As mentioned, use the storage calculator.
LoL @ the guy advocating a SAN for such a small implementation, even a NAS would be overkill. DAS storage is fine for what he is doing, and it will perform fine, assuming he is using SAS 15k drives, not some POS SATA drives.
< Message edited by troy12n -- 13.Apr.2010 2:25:45 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Partition config OK? - 13.Apr.2010 2:41:33 PM
|
|
|
mark@mvps.org
Posts: 6811
Joined: 9.Jun.2004
From: Philadelphia PA
Status: offline
|
Yeah, this is a DAS gig :)
And I work for a SAN vendor !!
_____________________________
Mark Arnold (Exchange MVP)
List Moderator
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Partition config OK? - 14.Apr.2010 9:07:31 AM
|
|
|
Dusty_bin
Posts: 10
Joined: 8.Mar.2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: troy12n
With 100 mailboxes, I dont see how you need 1.3 terrabytes of storage for your mailbox DB('s). If it was my system, I would have had 2x 72g or 146g15k disks raid1 for logs, 2x 300g or 600g 15k disks as raid1 for DB's, then repeat as necessary for an additional storage group/DB as you outgrow what you have. 1 Primary partition for every logical raid disk. It's a bad idea to do multiple partitions on a logical disk IMHO.
You need to enable mailbox quota's and mailbox retention policies right out of the gate, or you are asking for trouble down the road... As mentioned, use the storage calculator.
LoL @ the guy advocating a SAN for such a small implementation, even a NAS would be overkill. DAS storage is fine for what he is doing, and it will perform fine, assuming he is using SAS 15k drives, not some POS SATA drives.
Thanks mate. yes, The disks are 15K SAS running on a 2 x Quad Core with 12 GB RAM.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Partition config OK? - 14.Apr.2010 9:30:18 AM
|
|
|
thehutch
Posts: 87
Joined: 3.Jan.2008
Status: offline
|
Who advocated a SAN for this implentation? I asked if he was PLANNING to use one as it would be overkill.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Partition config OK? - 14.Apr.2010 10:11:17 AM
|
|
|
mark@mvps.org
Posts: 6811
Joined: 9.Jun.2004
From: Philadelphia PA
Status: offline
|
That's true, that's all you said. Nobody was taking the rise. With 1TB of email it's actually not a bad idea to look at something SAN related since 1TB of mail probably mean more file system data and probably SQL stuff. Very quickly you have a few TB of data and that has to be backed up. Cue the conversation about snapshots!
_____________________________
Mark Arnold (Exchange MVP)
List Moderator
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Partition config OK? - 14.Apr.2010 12:45:44 PM
|
|
|
thehutch
Posts: 87
Joined: 3.Jan.2008
Status: offline
|
Sounds like quotas and limits would be a better investment than any more money spent on diskspace but sometimes its harder to sell user responsibility and limits than it is thousands of dollars of storage.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
Printable Version
