Best compromise Raid-levels
Exchange Server Forum Index Exchange Server
Discussion forums for Microsoft Exchange Server users.
Microsoft Outlook
 
 FAQFAQ   MemberlistMemberlist     RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
 
Google
 
Web ExchangeServerHelp.com
Best compromise Raid-levels

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Exchange Server Forum Index -> Setup
Author Message
Oskarsson Mikael
Guest





Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2005 3:34 am    Post subject: Best compromise Raid-levels Reply with quote

Hi

A friend an and I disagree about an Exchange 2003 RAID-configuration.

Facts: A HP Proliant DL 380 with 6 x 300 GB Disks, and 4 GB RAM, Windows
2003 Std. and Exchange 2003 Ent.
Totaly 3500 mailboxes, about 400-500 at the same time.
20 GB + 40 GB Private store.
100 GB in public Store ( E-mail archive).

I want to have one RAID1 (2 disks) for OS+Pagefile+Log-files+
Exchange-program.
And a RAID5 (4 disks) to Edb/Stm-files.

My friend want to have one RAID0+1 (6 disks)

I know about that is best to have.
OS on one Raid 1.
Pagefile on one Raid 1.
Log-files on one Raid 1.
Edb/Stm-files on one RAID5.

Have I or my friend the best compromise?

Regards Mikael

Back to top
Jim Schwartz
Guest





Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2005 8:05 am    Post subject: Re: Best compromise Raid-levels Reply with quote

While in theory your friend is correct about performance in RAID0+1 being
faster that RAID 5 due to the write penalty imposed by RAID 5 you are
correct in splitting out your log files from your database files.

Optimally you would want to move the log files to a separate set of drives
than your OS, but you can get away with it in smaller environments. You may
also be able to get away with creating 3 RAID 1 volumes and separate out
the logs from the OS. You don't list the speed of the drives but you can
calculate that 2 15k disks in a RAID 1 could handle approximately 260 ops
per second.

You can use the formula in the link to see if that would handle what you
need.
http://blogs.msdn.com/exchange/archive/2004/11/03/251743.aspx


"Oskarsson Mikael" <mo-konsult@swipnet.se> wrote in message
news:e80S65O%23EHA.3124@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Quote:
Hi

A friend an and I disagree about an Exchange 2003 RAID-configuration.

Facts: A HP Proliant DL 380 with 6 x 300 GB Disks, and 4 GB RAM, Windows
2003 Std. and Exchange 2003 Ent.
Totaly 3500 mailboxes, about 400-500 at the same time.
20 GB + 40 GB Private store.
100 GB in public Store ( E-mail archive).

I want to have one RAID1 (2 disks) for OS+Pagefile+Log-files+
Exchange-program.
And a RAID5 (4 disks) to Edb/Stm-files.

My friend want to have one RAID0+1 (6 disks)

I know about that is best to have.
OS on one Raid 1.
Pagefile on one Raid 1.
Log-files on one Raid 1.
Edb/Stm-files on one RAID5.

Have I or my friend the best compromise?

Regards Mikael

Back to top
Andy David - Exchange MVP
Guest





Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2005 8:49 am    Post subject: Re: Best compromise Raid-levels Reply with quote

My concern is the size of those disks. With 300 GB drives ( which are
generally 10K), you could see some performance issues - even in a
small environment. I would consider sep controller cards for the logs
and store. Lab testing is crucial in this regard. Unfortunately, I
have witnessed first hand the performance problems with the larger
drives on a single controller.
My $.02.




On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 02:05:51 GMT, "Jim Schwartz"
<shamusnc@nfs.earthlink.net> wrote:

Quote:
While in theory your friend is correct about performance in RAID0+1 being
faster that RAID 5 due to the write penalty imposed by RAID 5 you are
correct in splitting out your log files from your database files.

Optimally you would want to move the log files to a separate set of drives
than your OS, but you can get away with it in smaller environments. You may
also be able to get away with creating 3 RAID 1 volumes and separate out
the logs from the OS. You don't list the speed of the drives but you can
calculate that 2 15k disks in a RAID 1 could handle approximately 260 ops
per second.

You can use the formula in the link to see if that would handle what you
need.
http://blogs.msdn.com/exchange/archive/2004/11/03/251743.aspx


"Oskarsson Mikael" <mo-konsult@swipnet.se> wrote in message
news:e80S65O%23EHA.3124@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Hi

A friend an and I disagree about an Exchange 2003 RAID-configuration.

Facts: A HP Proliant DL 380 with 6 x 300 GB Disks, and 4 GB RAM, Windows
2003 Std. and Exchange 2003 Ent.
Totaly 3500 mailboxes, about 400-500 at the same time.
20 GB + 40 GB Private store.
100 GB in public Store ( E-mail archive).

I want to have one RAID1 (2 disks) for OS+Pagefile+Log-files+
Exchange-program.
And a RAID5 (4 disks) to Edb/Stm-files.

My friend want to have one RAID0+1 (6 disks)

I know about that is best to have.
OS on one Raid 1.
Pagefile on one Raid 1.
Log-files on one Raid 1.
Edb/Stm-files on one RAID5.

Have I or my friend the best compromise?

Regards Mikael




Back to top
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Exchange Server Forum Index -> Setup All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Windows Server Dedicated Servers
Contact Us
New Topics Powered by phpBB