Exchange Server Forums

Disk configuration

Users viewing this topic: none

Logged in as: Guest

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Microsoft Exchange 2007] >> Installation >> Disk configuration

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Disk configuration - 5.Nov.2008 10:53:37 AM

rapid

Posts: 10
Joined: 5.Nov.2008
Status: offline

Hi All,

I'm currently in the process of implementing an Exchange 2007 server. The server is a Dell 2950, Dual Xeon, 8GB ram, 6 x 146gb 15k SAS drives.

We're a small company with around 40 users at the moment, but could grow to 60+ users over the next 3 years. Most users are average with a couple of heavy users in sales. The server is going to hold all exchange 2007 roles as I dont see the need to use more than one server for this size of company.

I'm going to look to implement enterprise vault as well, so the mailbox limits can be quite strict, probably circa 1gb

The server will be backed up using NetBackup.

I'm trying to decide what to go for on the disk config.. its out of the following, unless im missing a better option?

setup 1
2 x 146 RAID 1 partitioned (C: OS / D: Logs)
3 x 146 RAID 5 (E: DB)
1 x 146 HS for both arrays

setup 2
2 x 146 RAID 1 (c: OS)
2 x 146 RAID 1 (d: logs)
2 x 146 RAID 1 (e: db)

setup 3
2 x 146 RAID 1 partitioned (C: OS / D: Logs)
4 x 146 RAID 10 (E: DB)

Post #: 1

Featured Links*

RE: Disk configuration - 5.Nov.2008 11:25:25 AM

Elan Shudnow

Posts: 897
Joined: 4.Jan.2007
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

I would personally do Setup 1. Raid 1 gives good write performance for logs. Raid 5 doesn't have as good write performance as it does read performance. But with Exchange 2007 and its ability to cache more information, RAID 5 is acceptable. And with scalability to around 60 users, Raid 5 with 15K spindles should serve you well.

_____________________________

Elan Shudnow
Exchange MVP
http://www.shudnow.net

(in reply to rapid)

Post #: 2

RE: Disk configuration - 5.Nov.2008 12:06:52 PM

rapid

Posts: 10
Joined: 5.Nov.2008
Status: offline

Thanks for the advice Elan.

Am I right in thinking that the OS / Logs sharing the same spindles shouldn't cause too much slowdown?

Thanks,
R

(in reply to rapid)

Post #: 3

RE: Disk configuration - 5.Nov.2008 5:10:44 PM

Elan Shudnow

Posts: 897
Joined: 4.Jan.2007
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

For 60 users, probably not. I'd still put the logs on dedicated disks though. This way your database, logs, pagefile, and anything else utilizing disk resources will be separated.

_____________________________

Elan Shudnow
Exchange MVP
http://www.shudnow.net

(in reply to rapid)

Post #: 4

RE: Disk configuration - 6.Nov.2008 4:16:37 AM

rapid

Posts: 10
Joined: 5.Nov.2008
Status: offline

With setup 1 I cant put the OS / Logs on seperate disks, as they would be on a raid 1 partitioned pair.

setup 2 would be the only option which would allow the OS&PAGE / LOGS / DB to be on seperate disks.

(in reply to Elan Shudnow)

Post #: 5

RE: Disk configuration - 9.Dec.2008 10:36:31 AM

asmcbride

Posts: 25
Joined: 18.Oct.2007
Status: offline

anyone? I have the exact same question with nearly the same setup...only I have 300 users. still planning to use the same server and need assistance with disk configurations...

-asmcbride

(in reply to rapid)

Post #: 6

RE: Disk configuration - 9.Dec.2008 10:52:07 AM

rapid

Posts: 10
Joined: 5.Nov.2008
Status: offline

I decided to go with 3 RAID-1 setups.

2 x 146GB OS
2 x 146GB DB1 TL2
2 x 146GB DB2 TL1

So I can in theory have up to 3 disk failures without loss of data, and even if I lost either pair of raid's for the DB's I've mirrored the TL's

It might not be the best option though, but I just felt after reading up that in my case it was a good idea..

Regards,
R

(in reply to asmcbride)

Post #: 7

RE: Disk configuration - 9.Dec.2008 5:31:21 PM

asmcbride

Posts: 25
Joined: 18.Oct.2007
Status: offline

so you put the database 1 and tran logs from database 2 on the same drive? I thought that it wasnt recommended to have databases and trans logs on the same drive?

(in reply to rapid)

Post #: 8

RE: Disk configuration - 10.Dec.2008 4:23:32 AM

rapid

Posts: 10
Joined: 5.Nov.2008
Status: offline

If you had just DB1 and TL1 then yes these definitely need to go on different drives.

The reason they say not to put the DB/TL on the same drive is because they will write at the same time and also due to the fact that if you lost the drive you will lose both so there would be no recovery without a restore, putting DB1 on the same drive with TL2 will mean writes to DB1 & TL2 generally wont clash as much, and if a pair of drives fail, you will always have the TL's on for the DB a different drive..

Hope this helps explain, I'm no expert but logically this seems to be a good way to do it.

(in reply to asmcbride)

Post #: 9

RE: Disk configuration - 10.Dec.2008 8:18:54 AM

asmcbride

Posts: 25
Joined: 18.Oct.2007
Status: offline

makes sense, I've never thought about going at it that way, but it does make sense. good luck with everything.

(in reply to rapid)

Post #: 10

RE: Disk configuration - 10.Dec.2008 5:25:01 PM

TheCleaner

Posts: 126
Joined: 13.Sep.2004
From: OK
Status: offline

asmcbride,

Did you ever decide on a config?

I have the exact same setup as the OP/rapid for hardware and have around 450 mailboxes currently on an Exchange 2003 box.

My old server only has a total of 426GB of space period, and my DB and logs only take up around 150GB total.

I was thinking of going with:

setup 3
2 x 146 RAID 1 partitioned (C: OS / D: Logs)
4 x 146 RAID 10 (E: DB)

But am concerned about space and no HS.

I "could" go with a single RAID 5 array with 1 hot spare, and I would bet that performance for us would be just fine, especially since the current server is U320 10k drives and performance is fine on it currently (with a RAID 1 array and a RAID 5 array).

This is a brand new server and I can't go back and ask for an expansion array...I have to make do with what we purchased at this point.

Ideas?

(in reply to asmcbride)

Post #: 11