| Author |
Message |
chigrboy
Guest
|
 Posted:
Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:58 am Post subject:
Hard drive subsystem |
|
|
I'm designing a new exchange 2003 server for an
office of 50 users. My main concern with the hardware
is the disk subsystem. In doing my research, I find that using many smaller,
faster hard drives is best for performance. But most articles I read are for
1000 - 5000
users (again I have 50).
My questions:
1. What is considered a small disk size these days (36GB, 72GB)?
2. For 50 users, will there really be a tangable performance
hit if I use larger disks (say 140GB)?
3. Will 50 users feel a perfomance boost by using RAID 0+1 over RAID 5 for
the database storage?
4. RAID 0+1 is differant then RAID 10, but does anyone know
if there will be performance gain/loss by going with RAID 10? I told my
Hardware vender that I wanted 0+1 but on the qoute it says RAID 10 (I haven't
bought the computer yet).
Thanks!!!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Erwin van Workum
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Sep 28, 2005 3:25 pm Post subject:
RE: Hard drive subsystem |
|
|
Hi,
I think you have to ask yourself a couple of questions before you decide
what kind of server configuration you are going to implement.
1. What kind of system do you want to build ?? High performance systems will
cost you lots of money and can be overkill for the services you want to
provide.
2. What is the growth rate of the company
3. Are you going to use quota's for the mailboxes
4. Processor speed, hyperthreading processors will increase performance
5. Memory configuration, more memory will improve performance.
6. Raid configuration for OS, Log files and Exchange data
5. Are public folders going to be used extensively
As you can see a lot of factors determine the performance of the server and
the experience from a user perspective
The best configuration in your case in my opinion would be to configure a
system that can grow as the company grows.
Example: raid set for the OS (2x36.4Gb), a raid for the log files (2x72Gb),
and a raid set for the databases (3x72Gb) and use quota's for the mailboxes.
Have a look at the following article:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/exchange/guides/E2k3Perf_ScalGuide
--
With Kind regards,
Erwin van Workum
Alkum Solutions
Email : Erwin@alkum.nl
"chigrboy" wrote:
| Quote: | I'm designing a new exchange 2003 server for an
office of 50 users. My main concern with the hardware
is the disk subsystem. In doing my research, I find that using many smaller,
faster hard drives is best for performance. But most articles I read are for
1000 - 5000
users (again I have 50).
My questions:
1. What is considered a small disk size these days (36GB, 72GB)?
2. For 50 users, will there really be a tangable performance
hit if I use larger disks (say 140GB)?
3. Will 50 users feel a perfomance boost by using RAID 0+1 over RAID 5 for
the database storage?
4. RAID 0+1 is differant then RAID 10, but does anyone know
if there will be performance gain/loss by going with RAID 10? I told my
Hardware vender that I wanted 0+1 but on the qoute it says RAID 10 (I haven't
bought the computer yet).
Thanks!!!
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chigrboy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Sep 28, 2005 11:01 pm Post subject:
RE: Hard drive subsystem |
|
|
Hey Erwin,
Thanks for the response.
Your suggested system as pretty close to
what I have configured.
My question is what RAID levels do you suggest for
each of the three sets?
"Erwin van Workum" wrote:
| Quote: | Hi,
I think you have to ask yourself a couple of questions before you decide
what kind of server configuration you are going to implement.
1. What kind of system do you want to build ?? High performance systems will
cost you lots of money and can be overkill for the services you want to
provide.
2. What is the growth rate of the company
3. Are you going to use quota's for the mailboxes
4. Processor speed, hyperthreading processors will increase performance
5. Memory configuration, more memory will improve performance.
6. Raid configuration for OS, Log files and Exchange data
5. Are public folders going to be used extensively
As you can see a lot of factors determine the performance of the server and
the experience from a user perspective
The best configuration in your case in my opinion would be to configure a
system that can grow as the company grows.
Example: raid set for the OS (2x36.4Gb), a raid for the log files (2x72Gb),
and a raid set for the databases (3x72Gb) and use quota's for the mailboxes.
Have a look at the following article:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/exchange/guides/E2k3Perf_ScalGuide
--
With Kind regards,
Erwin van Workum
Alkum Solutions
Email : Erwin@alkum.nl
"chigrboy" wrote:
I'm designing a new exchange 2003 server for an
office of 50 users. My main concern with the hardware
is the disk subsystem. In doing my research, I find that using many smaller,
faster hard drives is best for performance. But most articles I read are for
1000 - 5000
users (again I have 50).
My questions:
1. What is considered a small disk size these days (36GB, 72GB)?
2. For 50 users, will there really be a tangable performance
hit if I use larger disks (say 140GB)?
3. Will 50 users feel a perfomance boost by using RAID 0+1 over RAID 5 for
the database storage?
4. RAID 0+1 is differant then RAID 10, but does anyone know
if there will be performance gain/loss by going with RAID 10? I told my
Hardware vender that I wanted 0+1 but on the qoute it says RAID 10 (I haven't
bought the computer yet).
Thanks!!!
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Erwin van Workum
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Sep 29, 2005 4:58 pm Post subject:
RE: Hard drive subsystem |
|
|
1. Raid 1 for the OS
2. Raid 1 for the logfiles of the storage groupa and databases
3. Raid 5 for Databases
--
With Kind regards,
Erwin van Workum
Alkum Solutions
Email : Erwin@alkum.nl
"chigrboy" wrote:
| Quote: | Hey Erwin,
Thanks for the response.
Your suggested system as pretty close to
what I have configured.
My question is what RAID levels do you suggest for
each of the three sets?
"Erwin van Workum" wrote:
Hi,
I think you have to ask yourself a couple of questions before you decide
what kind of server configuration you are going to implement.
1. What kind of system do you want to build ?? High performance systems will
cost you lots of money and can be overkill for the services you want to
provide.
2. What is the growth rate of the company
3. Are you going to use quota's for the mailboxes
4. Processor speed, hyperthreading processors will increase performance
5. Memory configuration, more memory will improve performance.
6. Raid configuration for OS, Log files and Exchange data
5. Are public folders going to be used extensively
As you can see a lot of factors determine the performance of the server and
the experience from a user perspective
The best configuration in your case in my opinion would be to configure a
system that can grow as the company grows.
Example: raid set for the OS (2x36.4Gb), a raid for the log files (2x72Gb),
and a raid set for the databases (3x72Gb) and use quota's for the mailboxes.
Have a look at the following article:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/exchange/guides/E2k3Perf_ScalGuide
--
With Kind regards,
Erwin van Workum
Alkum Solutions
Email : Erwin@alkum.nl
"chigrboy" wrote:
I'm designing a new exchange 2003 server for an
office of 50 users. My main concern with the hardware
is the disk subsystem. In doing my research, I find that using many smaller,
faster hard drives is best for performance. But most articles I read are for
1000 - 5000
users (again I have 50).
My questions:
1. What is considered a small disk size these days (36GB, 72GB)?
2. For 50 users, will there really be a tangable performance
hit if I use larger disks (say 140GB)?
3. Will 50 users feel a perfomance boost by using RAID 0+1 over RAID 5 for
the database storage?
4. RAID 0+1 is differant then RAID 10, but does anyone know
if there will be performance gain/loss by going with RAID 10? I told my
Hardware vender that I wanted 0+1 but on the qoute it says RAID 10 (I haven't
bought the computer yet).
Thanks!!!
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Asher_N
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:58 pm Post subject:
RE: Hard drive subsystem |
|
|
"=?Utf-8?B?RXJ3aW4gdmFuIFdvcmt1bQ==?="
<ErwinvanWorkum@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in news:629044C8-B2A0-
4E89-8216-358E045A830B@microsoft.com:
OTOH, I have a single RAID5 array of 4 36 GB drives. I carved out a 20GB
partition for the OS. I support about 100 users. There are no performance
issues.
| Quote: | 1. Raid 1 for the OS
2. Raid 1 for the logfiles of the storage groupa and databases
3. Raid 5 for Databases
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Schwartz
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 01, 2005 8:07 am Post subject:
Re: Hard drive subsystem |
|
|
Just for informational reasons, hyperthreading will help but faster
processor speeds don't give you as large a boost in performance as a bus
speed and L2-3 cache. There's an HP Powerpoint presentation somewhere that
shows the performance gains with processor speed aren't as great as bus and
cache. [1]
[1] That would mostly matter to larger implementations, but many times
smaller implementations can get better pricing on smaller procs and don't
need to spend the $$ on the latest processor speeds.
"Erwin van Workum" <ErwinvanWorkum@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:75BFE201-36C9-466D-ACD0-E9FA4DF41090@microsoft.com...
| Quote: | Hi,
I think you have to ask yourself a couple of questions before you decide
what kind of server configuration you are going to implement.
1. What kind of system do you want to build ?? High performance systems
will
cost you lots of money and can be overkill for the services you want to
provide.
2. What is the growth rate of the company
3. Are you going to use quota's for the mailboxes
4. Processor speed, hyperthreading processors will increase performance
5. Memory configuration, more memory will improve performance.
6. Raid configuration for OS, Log files and Exchange data
5. Are public folders going to be used extensively
As you can see a lot of factors determine the performance of the server
and
the experience from a user perspective
The best configuration in your case in my opinion would be to configure a
system that can grow as the company grows.
Example: raid set for the OS (2x36.4Gb), a raid for the log files
(2x72Gb),
and a raid set for the databases (3x72Gb) and use quota's for the
mailboxes.
Have a look at the following article:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/exchange/guides/E2k3Perf_ScalGuide
--
With Kind regards,
Erwin van Workum
Alkum Solutions
Email : Erwin@alkum.nl
"chigrboy" wrote:
I'm designing a new exchange 2003 server for an
office of 50 users. My main concern with the hardware
is the disk subsystem. In doing my research, I find that using many
smaller,
faster hard drives is best for performance. But most articles I read are
for
1000 - 5000
users (again I have 50).
My questions:
1. What is considered a small disk size these days (36GB, 72GB)?
2. For 50 users, will there really be a tangable performance
hit if I use larger disks (say 140GB)?
3. Will 50 users feel a perfomance boost by using RAID 0+1 over RAID 5
for
the database storage?
4. RAID 0+1 is differant then RAID 10, but does anyone know
if there will be performance gain/loss by going with RAID 10? I told
my
Hardware vender that I wanted 0+1 but on the qoute it says RAID 10 (I
haven't
bought the computer yet).
Thanks!!!
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in