Multiple storage group / Databases (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Microsoft Exchange 2003] >> Information Stores



Message


wmayer -> Multiple storage group / Databases (30.Jan.2008 2:12:44 PM)

I'm currently in a situation where we have a exchange server with one store that is about 120G. I'm thinking about splitting the database into 14 smaller databases across 4 storage groups to make the database more manageable. I wanted to see if anyone thought this would be a bad idea. Please let me know your thoughts or links to recommendations.

Current system:
Windows 2003 Enterprise Cluster
Exchange 2003 Enterprise -3G Ram - Connection to San
One Storage Group, One Data store




a.grogan -> RE: Multiple storage group / Databases (30.Jan.2008 2:19:24 PM)

Hiya chap, how many users do you have?
Also, why 14 databases?

Sorry for the questions - just interested.

Cheers

A




wmayer -> RE: Multiple storage group / Databases (30.Jan.2008 5:20:12 PM)

About 600 Mailboxes. Some 1G or Greater. With Blackberry and Unified messaging making connection. My thought was to break the databases down to 12G so that Maintenance will run faster( ie. backups and defrag). The storage group would make the performance better by running logs to separate disk. We have be having slowness issues.




a.grogan -> RE: Multiple storage group / Databases (30.Jan.2008 5:35:34 PM)

Hiya chap - thanks for getting back,
The slowness could be for a number of reasons (one of which could be RAID levels linked to IOPS - as you use BES) - I guess I jumped in as 14 DB's does not strike me as easier to manage - do you have any metrics from your server - for example -
1. largest mailbox.
2. Application Event Log ID 1221 - how much space does that report?
3. What are the current RAID setting for DB and Logs

Anything else that you might think pertinent - one thing that I can say without wishing to seem insulting is that 14 DB's for 600 mailboxes is not a good idea

If you are happy to come back with the info all of us will be happy to help with suggestions;

Cheers

A




wmayer -> RE: Multiple storage group / Databases (31.Jan.2008 10:13:05 AM)




More Info:
Largest Mailbox - 4.4G
Event Id 1221 - 3724M
Store: 1 (HP EVA SAN)
Logs: 1 (HP EVA SAN)

http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-6089015.html


The above article talks about how 2003 Exchange Enterprise and how you can increase the performance by using Storage group to your advantage. The only reason I pick 14 was I have another site with a 12G store that a offline defrag only took 2-3 hours. If I were to do a offline defrag on 120G Store we would be looking at one pass taking over 18hr. This is not a do able thing for our environment. If I had (14) 12 G store my thought process said that we could do this after hours. Some users in our environment work long hours and 7 days a week some maintenance is hard to do.

Along with the slowness issues we have on occasion got serious errors like SLINK:ECUpdate Error: 0x8004010f. Microsoft has asked use to run a offline defrag which is imposable because we can't get the down time to complete the task.

I'm ok with lowering the amount of databases but I still believe splitting them will help with performance. What do you suggest as a number of database?

Performance monitoring from our monitoring system: Information Store RPC operations/sec is 5.40




a.grogan -> RE: Multiple storage group / Databases (31.Jan.2008 12:33:51 PM)

Hiya chap, I agree that rationalising your databases will indeed help.
I would personally look at perhaps 3 storage groups with maybe one or two databases in each.

I would also look to place the heavier users in one Database (or across two) - do you use mailbox size limits?

Cheers

A




Page: [1]