| Author |
Message |
abgray
Guest
|
 Posted:
Tue Mar 01, 2005 6:42 pm Post subject:
Disk Configuration help |
|
|
Hi
I currently have an exchange 2000 server setup in a 2 node cluster
configuration, database and log files are stored on a SAN. The cluster
servers are current;y running 1GB RAM but will soon be upgraded to 2GB.
Current storage setup is
1 x 150GB partition for db - F:\
1 x 20 gb partition for logfiles - L:\
Situation
---------
The database is nearing its storage capacity and I would like to need to
create another information store on a separate drive. I have enough disk to
create another RAID 5 array and another RAID 0+1 array for logfiles if
needed. My question is, can the newly created information store on a new
array and new volume use the same drive for logfiles as the current running
information store or do I need to create a new storage group with new db and
logfiles.
What is the best configuration option1 or option 2 or neither. I would
prefer option 1 if its possible. I really appreciate any help and guidance
that can be offered.
Option 1
---------
Stroage Group1
Array1 RAID0+1 L:\ Logfiles
Array2 RAID5 F:\ Exchange DB 1
Array3 RAID5 G:\ Exchange DB 2
Option 2
---------
Stroage Group1
Array1 RAID0+1 L:\ Logfiles
Array2 RAID5 F:\ Exchange DB 1
Stroage Group2
Array4 RAID0+1 L:\ Logfiles
Array3 RAID5 F:\ Exchange DB 1
Thanks in advance.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Al Mulnick
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:11 am Post subject:
Re: Disk Configuration help |
|
|
It can use the same log files. Usually the guiding decisions are about
restoration times, backup times, and do you really need more log file
resources?
Either should do what you want however.
Al
"abgray" <abgray@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:uBLkYwlHFHA.2984@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | Hi
I currently have an exchange 2000 server setup in a 2 node cluster
configuration, database and log files are stored on a SAN. The cluster
servers are current;y running 1GB RAM but will soon be upgraded to 2GB.
Current storage setup is
1 x 150GB partition for db - F:\
1 x 20 gb partition for logfiles - L:\
Situation
---------
The database is nearing its storage capacity and I would like to need to
create another information store on a separate drive. I have enough disk
to
create another RAID 5 array and another RAID 0+1 array for logfiles if
needed. My question is, can the newly created information store on a new
array and new volume use the same drive for logfiles as the current
running
information store or do I need to create a new storage group with new db
and
logfiles.
What is the best configuration option1 or option 2 or neither. I would
prefer option 1 if its possible. I really appreciate any help and
guidance
that can be offered.
Option 1
---------
Stroage Group1
Array1 RAID0+1 L:\ Logfiles
Array2 RAID5 F:\ Exchange DB 1
Array3 RAID5 G:\ Exchange DB 2
Option 2
---------
Stroage Group1
Array1 RAID0+1 L:\ Logfiles
Array2 RAID5 F:\ Exchange DB 1
Stroage Group2
Array4 RAID0+1 L:\ Logfiles
Array3 RAID5 F:\ Exchange DB 1
Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
abgray
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Mar 03, 2005 4:47 pm Post subject:
Re: Disk Configuration help |
|
|
Al
Thanks for your response. Yes, the aim is eventually to split one very
large database into smaller, more manageable databases - allowing for faster
restore times. At the moment however our main goal is to make sure we don't
run out of disk space. Will performance be compromised by adding a new
store on a different volume in the same storage group? ie Option 1 as I
outlined below.
Appreciate your help.
"Al Mulnick" <amulnick_No_SPAM@ncDOTrr.com> wrote in message
news:%23rgIBGtHFHA.588@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | It can use the same log files. Usually the guiding decisions are about
restoration times, backup times, and do you really need more log file
resources?
Either should do what you want however.
Al
"abgray" <abgray@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:uBLkYwlHFHA.2984@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Hi
I currently have an exchange 2000 server setup in a 2 node cluster
configuration, database and log files are stored on a SAN. The cluster
servers are current;y running 1GB RAM but will soon be upgraded to 2GB.
Current storage setup is
1 x 150GB partition for db - F:\
1 x 20 gb partition for logfiles - L:\
Situation
---------
The database is nearing its storage capacity and I would like to need to
create another information store on a separate drive. I have enough disk
to
create another RAID 5 array and another RAID 0+1 array for logfiles if
needed. My question is, can the newly created information store on a new
array and new volume use the same drive for logfiles as the current
running
information store or do I need to create a new storage group with new db
and
logfiles.
What is the best configuration option1 or option 2 or neither. I would
prefer option 1 if its possible. I really appreciate any help and
guidance
that can be offered.
Option 1
---------
Stroage Group1
Array1 RAID0+1 L:\ Logfiles
Array2 RAID5 F:\ Exchange DB 1
Array3 RAID5 G:\ Exchange DB 2
Option 2
---------
Stroage Group1
Array1 RAID0+1 L:\ Logfiles
Array2 RAID5 F:\ Exchange DB 1
Stroage Group2
Array4 RAID0+1 L:\ Logfiles
Array3 RAID5 F:\ Exchange DB 1
Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Al Mulnick
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Mar 03, 2005 8:28 pm Post subject:
Re: Disk Configuration help |
|
|
Performance is tightly coupled to disk performance. Having multiple stores
has a low impact in most cases vs. having one large one. In a certain range
(size of db) the performance will likely be equal, but after a larger store
size is attained, performance would likely degrade on a single store vs. a
multiple store configuration due to background tasks taking longer etc.
Otherwise, the disk is the limiting factor in performance etc. (typically).
Having a new store on a separate volume is typically a good way to increase
performance as the two stores no longer have to compete for IOPS.
I'd go with option 1 and not feel uncomfortable about it.
Al
"abgray" <abgray@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:eWR$559HFHA.3776@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | Al
Thanks for your response. Yes, the aim is eventually to split one very
large database into smaller, more manageable databases - allowing for
faster restore times. At the moment however our main goal is to make sure
we don't run out of disk space. Will performance be compromised by adding
a new store on a different volume in the same storage group? ie Option 1
as I outlined below.
Appreciate your help.
"Al Mulnick" <amulnick_No_SPAM@ncDOTrr.com> wrote in message
news:%23rgIBGtHFHA.588@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
It can use the same log files. Usually the guiding decisions are about
restoration times, backup times, and do you really need more log file
resources?
Either should do what you want however.
Al
"abgray" <abgray@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:uBLkYwlHFHA.2984@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Hi
I currently have an exchange 2000 server setup in a 2 node cluster
configuration, database and log files are stored on a SAN. The cluster
servers are current;y running 1GB RAM but will soon be upgraded to 2GB.
Current storage setup is
1 x 150GB partition for db - F:\
1 x 20 gb partition for logfiles - L:\
Situation
---------
The database is nearing its storage capacity and I would like to need to
create another information store on a separate drive. I have enough disk
to
create another RAID 5 array and another RAID 0+1 array for logfiles if
needed. My question is, can the newly created information store on a
new
array and new volume use the same drive for logfiles as the current
running
information store or do I need to create a new storage group with new db
and
logfiles.
What is the best configuration option1 or option 2 or neither. I would
prefer option 1 if its possible. I really appreciate any help and
guidance
that can be offered.
Option 1
---------
Stroage Group1
Array1 RAID0+1 L:\ Logfiles
Array2 RAID5 F:\ Exchange DB 1
Array3 RAID5 G:\ Exchange DB 2
Option 2
---------
Stroage Group1
Array1 RAID0+1 L:\ Logfiles
Array2 RAID5 F:\ Exchange DB 1
Stroage Group2
Array4 RAID0+1 L:\ Logfiles
Array3 RAID5 F:\ Exchange DB 1
Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
abgray
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Mar 04, 2005 6:12 am Post subject:
Re: Disk Configuration help |
|
|
Thanks Al, great advice. I really appreciate it.
"Al Mulnick" <amulnick_No_SPAM@ncDOTrr.com> wrote in message
news:%233CO50$HFHA.1172@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | Performance is tightly coupled to disk performance. Having multiple
stores has a low impact in most cases vs. having one large one. In a
certain range (size of db) the performance will likely be equal, but after
a larger store size is attained, performance would likely degrade on a
single store vs. a multiple store configuration due to background tasks
taking longer etc.
Otherwise, the disk is the limiting factor in performance etc.
(typically). Having a new store on a separate volume is typically a good
way to increase performance as the two stores no longer have to compete
for IOPS.
I'd go with option 1 and not feel uncomfortable about it.
Al
"abgray" <abgray@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:eWR$559HFHA.3776@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Al
Thanks for your response. Yes, the aim is eventually to split one very
large database into smaller, more manageable databases - allowing for
faster restore times. At the moment however our main goal is to make
sure we don't run out of disk space. Will performance be compromised by
adding a new store on a different volume in the same storage group? ie
Option 1 as I outlined below.
Appreciate your help.
"Al Mulnick" <amulnick_No_SPAM@ncDOTrr.com> wrote in message
news:%23rgIBGtHFHA.588@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
It can use the same log files. Usually the guiding decisions are about
restoration times, backup times, and do you really need more log file
resources?
Either should do what you want however.
Al
"abgray" <abgray@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:uBLkYwlHFHA.2984@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Hi
I currently have an exchange 2000 server setup in a 2 node cluster
configuration, database and log files are stored on a SAN. The cluster
servers are current;y running 1GB RAM but will soon be upgraded to 2GB.
Current storage setup is
1 x 150GB partition for db - F:\
1 x 20 gb partition for logfiles - L:\
Situation
---------
The database is nearing its storage capacity and I would like to need
to
create another information store on a separate drive. I have enough
disk to
create another RAID 5 array and another RAID 0+1 array for logfiles if
needed. My question is, can the newly created information store on a
new
array and new volume use the same drive for logfiles as the current
running
information store or do I need to create a new storage group with new
db and
logfiles.
What is the best configuration option1 or option 2 or neither. I would
prefer option 1 if its possible. I really appreciate any help and
guidance
that can be offered.
Option 1
---------
Stroage Group1
Array1 RAID0+1 L:\ Logfiles
Array2 RAID5 F:\ Exchange DB 1
Array3 RAID5 G:\ Exchange DB 2
Option 2
---------
Stroage Group1
Array1 RAID0+1 L:\ Logfiles
Array2 RAID5 F:\ Exchange DB 1
Stroage Group2
Array4 RAID0+1 L:\ Logfiles
Array3 RAID5 F:\ Exchange DB 1
Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mitch
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Mar 15, 2005 8:11 am Post subject:
Re: Disk Configuration help |
|
|
If you are real concerned about disk performance use the raid 0+1 for your
stores it is something new that microsoft is recommending for high
performance stores. It is almost a 75% increase in efficiency
"abgray" <abgray@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:uhNXu7EIFHA.2736@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | Thanks Al, great advice. I really appreciate it.
"Al Mulnick" <amulnick_No_SPAM@ncDOTrr.com> wrote in message
news:%233CO50$HFHA.1172@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Performance is tightly coupled to disk performance. Having multiple
stores has a low impact in most cases vs. having one large one. In a
certain range (size of db) the performance will likely be equal, but
after a larger store size is attained, performance would likely degrade
on a single store vs. a multiple store configuration due to background
tasks taking longer etc.
Otherwise, the disk is the limiting factor in performance etc.
(typically). Having a new store on a separate volume is typically a good
way to increase performance as the two stores no longer have to compete
for IOPS.
I'd go with option 1 and not feel uncomfortable about it.
Al
"abgray" <abgray@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:eWR$559HFHA.3776@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Al
Thanks for your response. Yes, the aim is eventually to split one very
large database into smaller, more manageable databases - allowing for
faster restore times. At the moment however our main goal is to make
sure we don't run out of disk space. Will performance be compromised by
adding a new store on a different volume in the same storage group? ie
Option 1 as I outlined below.
Appreciate your help.
"Al Mulnick" <amulnick_No_SPAM@ncDOTrr.com> wrote in message
news:%23rgIBGtHFHA.588@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
It can use the same log files. Usually the guiding decisions are about
restoration times, backup times, and do you really need more log file
resources?
Either should do what you want however.
Al
"abgray" <abgray@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:uBLkYwlHFHA.2984@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Hi
I currently have an exchange 2000 server setup in a 2 node cluster
configuration, database and log files are stored on a SAN. The
cluster
servers are current;y running 1GB RAM but will soon be upgraded to
2GB.
Current storage setup is
1 x 150GB partition for db - F:\
1 x 20 gb partition for logfiles - L:\
Situation
---------
The database is nearing its storage capacity and I would like to need
to
create another information store on a separate drive. I have enough
disk to
create another RAID 5 array and another RAID 0+1 array for logfiles if
needed. My question is, can the newly created information store on a
new
array and new volume use the same drive for logfiles as the current
running
information store or do I need to create a new storage group with new
db and
logfiles.
What is the best configuration option1 or option 2 or neither. I would
prefer option 1 if its possible. I really appreciate any help and
guidance
that can be offered.
Option 1
---------
Stroage Group1
Array1 RAID0+1 L:\ Logfiles
Array2 RAID5 F:\ Exchange DB 1
Array3 RAID5 G:\ Exchange DB 2
Option 2
---------
Stroage Group1
Array1 RAID0+1 L:\ Logfiles
Array2 RAID5 F:\ Exchange DB 1
Stroage Group2
Array4 RAID0+1 L:\ Logfiles
Array3 RAID5 F:\ Exchange DB 1
Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
abgray
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Mar 15, 2005 5:25 pm Post subject:
Re: Disk Configuration help |
|
|
Thanks Mitch - advice taken on board. This is something we will consider
doing when we create a volume and store in the future for VIP's.
Cheers
"mitch" <mitch@newsgroups.stuff> wrote in message
news:Okpc5dRKFHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | If you are real concerned about disk performance use the raid 0+1 for your
stores it is something new that microsoft is recommending for high
performance stores. It is almost a 75% increase in efficiency
"abgray" <abgray@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:uhNXu7EIFHA.2736@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Thanks Al, great advice. I really appreciate it.
"Al Mulnick" <amulnick_No_SPAM@ncDOTrr.com> wrote in message
news:%233CO50$HFHA.1172@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Performance is tightly coupled to disk performance. Having multiple
stores has a low impact in most cases vs. having one large one. In a
certain range (size of db) the performance will likely be equal, but
after a larger store size is attained, performance would likely degrade
on a single store vs. a multiple store configuration due to background
tasks taking longer etc.
Otherwise, the disk is the limiting factor in performance etc.
(typically). Having a new store on a separate volume is typically a good
way to increase performance as the two stores no longer have to compete
for IOPS.
I'd go with option 1 and not feel uncomfortable about it.
Al
"abgray" <abgray@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:eWR$559HFHA.3776@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Al
Thanks for your response. Yes, the aim is eventually to split one very
large database into smaller, more manageable databases - allowing for
faster restore times. At the moment however our main goal is to make
sure we don't run out of disk space. Will performance be compromised
by adding a new store on a different volume in the same storage group?
ie Option 1 as I outlined below.
Appreciate your help.
"Al Mulnick" <amulnick_No_SPAM@ncDOTrr.com> wrote in message
news:%23rgIBGtHFHA.588@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
It can use the same log files. Usually the guiding decisions are
about restoration times, backup times, and do you really need more log
file resources?
Either should do what you want however.
Al
"abgray" <abgray@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:uBLkYwlHFHA.2984@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Hi
I currently have an exchange 2000 server setup in a 2 node cluster
configuration, database and log files are stored on a SAN. The
cluster
servers are current;y running 1GB RAM but will soon be upgraded to
2GB.
Current storage setup is
1 x 150GB partition for db - F:\
1 x 20 gb partition for logfiles - L:\
Situation
---------
The database is nearing its storage capacity and I would like to need
to
create another information store on a separate drive. I have enough
disk to
create another RAID 5 array and another RAID 0+1 array for logfiles
if
needed. My question is, can the newly created information store on a
new
array and new volume use the same drive for logfiles as the current
running
information store or do I need to create a new storage group with new
db and
logfiles.
What is the best configuration option1 or option 2 or neither. I
would
prefer option 1 if its possible. I really appreciate any help and
guidance
that can be offered.
Option 1
---------
Stroage Group1
Array1 RAID0+1 L:\ Logfiles
Array2 RAID5 F:\ Exchange DB 1
Array3 RAID5 G:\ Exchange DB 2
Option 2
---------
Stroage Group1
Array1 RAID0+1 L:\ Logfiles
Array2 RAID5 F:\ Exchange DB 1
Stroage Group2
Array4 RAID0+1 L:\ Logfiles
Array3 RAID5 F:\ Exchange DB 1
Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in