| Author |
Message |
Kerry Hoskin
Guest
|
 Posted:
Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:58 pm Post subject:
the age old question, disk configuration |
|
|
We're migrating to Exchange 2003 in a few months and I'm about to source a
server. We have around 170 mailboxes with possible growth to 200 within the
next 2-3 years. I have already done a test migration and with the 170
mailboxes the message store is just about 10Gb.
The server is probalby going to be a DELL PE2850, Dual 3Ghz, and 3Gb Ram but
I'd like some suggestions for the disk configuration. I was thinking along
the lines of
2*36gb Raid 1 OS, Pagefile,
2*36 Raid 1 Logs
2*72 Message store
but Iwould we be better off with
2*36Gb Raid 1 OS, Pagefile
3*72Gb Raid 5 Logs, Message Store
1 Hot Spare
or
2*36Gb Raid 1 OS, Pagefile
4*72Gb Raid 5 Logs, Message Store
all drives 15k
Cheers
Kerry
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Asher_N
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:58 pm Post subject:
Re: the age old question, disk configuration |
|
|
Your first config is pretty good.
If you want to go with RAID5 and a hot spare, then I'd put the log on C:.
Logs should not be on the same drive as the data store both for performance
and data recovery. In a perfect world, logs should not be with the OS
either, but it has less impact re: performance.
On 12-Dec-2005, "Kerry Hoskin" <kjho@pml.ac.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | We're migrating to Exchange 2003 in a few months and I'm about to source a
server. We have around 170 mailboxes with possible growth to 200 within
the
next 2-3 years. I have already done a test migration and with the 170
mailboxes the message store is just about 10Gb.
The server is probalby going to be a DELL PE2850, Dual 3Ghz, and 3Gb Ram
but
I'd like some suggestions for the disk configuration. I was thinking
along
the lines of
2*36gb Raid 1 OS, Pagefile,
2*36 Raid 1 Logs
2*72 Message store
but Iwould we be better off with
2*36Gb Raid 1 OS, Pagefile
3*72Gb Raid 5 Logs, Message Store
1 Hot Spare
or
2*36Gb Raid 1 OS, Pagefile
4*72Gb Raid 5 Logs, Message Store
all drives 15k
Cheers
Kerry |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bharat Suneja
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:58 pm Post subject:
Re: the age old question, disk configuration |
|
|
What's the priority? Disaster Recovery, performance, cost (in that order)?
First option (separating logs & store) sounds logical, but either config
should not pose any performance issues with that number of users.
Perhaps another alternative:
2*36gb RAID1 - OS, Pagefile
2*36gb RAID1 - Logs
3 or 4*36gb RAID5 - Store
--
Bharat Suneja
MCSE, MCT
www.zenprise.com
blog: www.suneja.com/blog
-----------------------------------------
"Kerry Hoskin" <kjho@pml.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:%23eQVS9y$FHA.3392@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | We're migrating to Exchange 2003 in a few months and I'm about to source a
server. We have around 170 mailboxes with possible growth to 200 within
the next 2-3 years. I have already done a test migration and with the 170
mailboxes the message store is just about 10Gb.
The server is probalby going to be a DELL PE2850, Dual 3Ghz, and 3Gb Ram
but I'd like some suggestions for the disk configuration. I was thinking
along the lines of
2*36gb Raid 1 OS, Pagefile,
2*36 Raid 1 Logs
2*72 Message store
but Iwould we be better off with
2*36Gb Raid 1 OS, Pagefile
3*72Gb Raid 5 Logs, Message Store
1 Hot Spare
or
2*36Gb Raid 1 OS, Pagefile
4*72Gb Raid 5 Logs, Message Store
all drives 15k
Cheers
Kerry
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kerry Hoskin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:58 pm Post subject:
Re: the age old question, disk configuration |
|
|
I would say that list of priorities is about right, I don't see performance
being too much of an issue with the size of shop we have, and of course
price is always a factor.
Kerry
"Bharat Suneja" <bharatsuneja@no.spam.org> wrote in message
news:uYawMxz$FHA.344@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | What's the priority? Disaster Recovery, performance, cost (in that order)?
First option (separating logs & store) sounds logical, but either config
should not pose any performance issues with that number of users.
Perhaps another alternative:
2*36gb RAID1 - OS, Pagefile
2*36gb RAID1 - Logs
3 or 4*36gb RAID5 - Store
--
Bharat Suneja
MCSE, MCT
www.zenprise.com
blog: www.suneja.com/blog
-----------------------------------------
"Kerry Hoskin" <kjho@pml.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:%23eQVS9y$FHA.3392@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
We're migrating to Exchange 2003 in a few months and I'm about to source
a server. We have around 170 mailboxes with possible growth to 200
within the next 2-3 years. I have already done a test migration and with
the 170 mailboxes the message store is just about 10Gb.
The server is probalby going to be a DELL PE2850, Dual 3Ghz, and 3Gb Ram
but I'd like some suggestions for the disk configuration. I was thinking
along the lines of
2*36gb Raid 1 OS, Pagefile,
2*36 Raid 1 Logs
2*72 Message store
but Iwould we be better off with
2*36Gb Raid 1 OS, Pagefile
3*72Gb Raid 5 Logs, Message Store
1 Hot Spare
or
2*36Gb Raid 1 OS, Pagefile
4*72Gb Raid 5 Logs, Message Store
all drives 15k
Cheers
Kerry
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hank Arnold
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 14, 2005 9:58 am Post subject:
Re: the age old question, disk configuration |
|
|
I agree as long as the config allows more than 6 drives....... We wanted to
set up a similar configuration for a SQL server with 3 RAID arrays:
C: RAID 1
D: RAID 1
E: RAID 10
Problem is that this requires 8 drives and the 2850 (which we got) only
allows for 6 drives (it's a rack mounted server). To go beyond 6 drives, the
OP will either have to go to a tower (2800) or add an external storage box
(like the power Vault series). We ended up with the Power Vault 220 (houses
up to 14 drives and 2 RAID channels).
If stuck with 6 drives, I'd go for
C: RAID 1 OS/Page File/Log Files
D:: RAID 10 Data Stores
RAID 5 (w/hot spare) is an alternative for D:. Performance difference may
not be significant....
--
Regards,
Hank Arnold
"Bharat Suneja" <bharatsuneja@no.spam.org> wrote in message
news:uYawMxz$FHA.344@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | What's the priority? Disaster Recovery, performance, cost (in that order)?
First option (separating logs & store) sounds logical, but either config
should not pose any performance issues with that number of users.
Perhaps another alternative:
2*36gb RAID1 - OS, Pagefile
2*36gb RAID1 - Logs
3 or 4*36gb RAID5 - Store
--
Bharat Suneja
MCSE, MCT
www.zenprise.com
blog: www.suneja.com/blog
-----------------------------------------
"Kerry Hoskin" <kjho@pml.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:%23eQVS9y$FHA.3392@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
We're migrating to Exchange 2003 in a few months and I'm about to source
a server. We have around 170 mailboxes with possible growth to 200
within the next 2-3 years. I have already done a test migration and with
the 170 mailboxes the message store is just about 10Gb.
The server is probalby going to be a DELL PE2850, Dual 3Ghz, and 3Gb Ram
but I'd like some suggestions for the disk configuration. I was thinking
along the lines of
2*36gb Raid 1 OS, Pagefile,
2*36 Raid 1 Logs
2*72 Message store
but Iwould we be better off with
2*36Gb Raid 1 OS, Pagefile
3*72Gb Raid 5 Logs, Message Store
1 Hot Spare
or
2*36Gb Raid 1 OS, Pagefile
4*72Gb Raid 5 Logs, Message Store
all drives 15k
Cheers
Kerry
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kerry Hoskin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 14, 2005 5:05 pm Post subject:
Re: the age old question, disk configuration |
|
|
funny enough I'm considering a PE2800 with a rack kit that gives 8 disks,
so you can go with
2* 36 Gb OS, Pagefile RAID 1
2* 36Gb Logs RAID 1
3 + hot spare or 4 * 36Gb Store RAID 5
only trouble is its 5U
Kerry
"Hank Arnold" <rasilon@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e7sJCRJAGHA.3992@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | I agree as long as the config allows more than 6 drives....... We wanted to
set up a similar configuration for a SQL server with 3 RAID arrays:
C: RAID 1
D: RAID 1
E: RAID 10
Problem is that this requires 8 drives and the 2850 (which we got) only
allows for 6 drives (it's a rack mounted server). To go beyond 6 drives,
the OP will either have to go to a tower (2800) or add an external storage
box (like the power Vault series). We ended up with the Power Vault 220
(houses up to 14 drives and 2 RAID channels).
If stuck with 6 drives, I'd go for
C: RAID 1 OS/Page File/Log Files
D:: RAID 10 Data Stores
RAID 5 (w/hot spare) is an alternative for D:. Performance difference may
not be significant....
--
Regards,
Hank Arnold
"Bharat Suneja" <bharatsuneja@no.spam.org> wrote in message
news:uYawMxz$FHA.344@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
What's the priority? Disaster Recovery, performance, cost (in that
order)?
First option (separating logs & store) sounds logical, but either config
should not pose any performance issues with that number of users.
Perhaps another alternative:
2*36gb RAID1 - OS, Pagefile
2*36gb RAID1 - Logs
3 or 4*36gb RAID5 - Store
--
Bharat Suneja
MCSE, MCT
www.zenprise.com
blog: www.suneja.com/blog
-----------------------------------------
"Kerry Hoskin" <kjho@pml.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:%23eQVS9y$FHA.3392@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
We're migrating to Exchange 2003 in a few months and I'm about to source
a server. We have around 170 mailboxes with possible growth to 200
within the next 2-3 years. I have already done a test migration and
with the 170 mailboxes the message store is just about 10Gb.
The server is probalby going to be a DELL PE2850, Dual 3Ghz, and 3Gb Ram
but I'd like some suggestions for the disk configuration. I was
thinking along the lines of
2*36gb Raid 1 OS, Pagefile,
2*36 Raid 1 Logs
2*72 Message store
but Iwould we be better off with
2*36Gb Raid 1 OS, Pagefile
3*72Gb Raid 5 Logs, Message Store
1 Hot Spare
or
2*36Gb Raid 1 OS, Pagefile
4*72Gb Raid 5 Logs, Message Store
all drives 15k
Cheers
Kerry
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in