 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Server Forum / Exchange Server / Design / October 2008Exchange 2007 mailbox storage Design
Hi, i'm planning for CCR. 2 mailbox servers is attached to a SAN. However, Due to the no. of hdd constrain, i have a problem in designing the storage allocate for the 2 mailbox servers. i'm not sure if the planned is design make sense. As below. Configure for Active Mailbox server: -4 hard disks (RAID 1/0) - Sliced to 2 logical drives, one for Logs and the other for Database. Configure for Passive Mailbox server: - 2 hard disks (RAID 1) - Sliced to 2 logical drives, one for Logs and the other for Database. As RAID 1/0 has better performance, i use it for the active mailbox. But i do not have much hard disks for the passive, so i thought of use 2 hard disks since is passive mailbox server. Or do u suggest to use RAID 5 (3 harddisks) for passive mailbox server? Anyway, i think is not cost effective for CCR, having planned for 4 harddisk (RAID 1/0) for both Active and Passive mailbox servers. Thats actually occupied 8 slots of harddisks! regards, Chua Before we talk RAID (without getting into any talks about having logs and database on the same RAID set (although a different logical partition). How many users is this for? And you have hardware for CAS and HT roles? Oliver For 600 users, Yes, i have another 2 boxes for HT/CAS. > Before we talk RAID (without getting into any talks about having logs and > database on the same RAID set (although a different logical partition). > > How many users is this for? And you have hardware for CAS and HT roles? > > Oliver You're don't have enough spindles.  SignatureEd Crowley MVP "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems." . > For 600 users, Yes, i have another 2 boxes for HT/CAS. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> Oliver See what the Exchange 2007 Storage Calculator has to say. Agreed with Ed, you haven't got enough spindles currently. http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2007/01/15/432207.aspx Oliver Also your passive CCR node should be able to handle your user load - designing it with insufficient IO because you will prefer to have all resources on a preferred node, won't cut it if something major happens to that node. Oliver > See what the Exchange 2007 Storage Calculator has to say. Agreed with Ed, > you haven't got enough spindles currently. > > http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2007/01/15/432207.aspx > > Oliver Decide what functions go where in both normal operations and failover. The loads may be different (backup verification on the passive node for example), but you need to figure out which one is highest and use that number when designing the storage for both nodes. > Also your passive CCR node should be able to handle your user load - > designing it with insufficient IO because you will prefer to have all [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> >> Oliver Keep in mind the storage calculator estimates. But the storage calculator does tell you how many IOPs you need based on user profiles and then gives you an estimated disk count. After you implement this solution, it's always best to test with Jetstress and Loadgen to ensure that you are correctly providing enough speed to satisfy your requirements/needs. -- Elan Shudnow http://www.shudnow.net > Decide what functions go where in both normal operations and failover. The > loads may be different (backup verification on the passive node for [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >> > >> Oliver Hi Ed, Pardon for asking silly question. What u mean i do not have enough spindles? not in enough for the passive mailboxes (2 mirror disks)? regards, steve > You're don't have enough spindles. > > For 600 users, Yes, i have another 2 boxes for HT/CAS. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >> > >> Oliver Not enough to handle the I/O requirements for 600 users, unless they log on very infrequently and not at the same time. SignatureEd Crowley MVP "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems." . > Hi Ed, > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> >> >> >> Oliver In other words you need more physical hard drives. > Not enough to handle the I/O requirements for 600 users, unless they log > on very infrequently and not at the same time. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >>> >> >>> >> Oliver Probably lots more. SignatureEd Crowley MVP "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems." . > In other words you need more physical hard drives. > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >>>> >> >>>> >> Oliver Hi, u guys suspect eve 4 harddisks (raid 10) not enough too (for database and logs)? i used the Exchange capacity calculator, it recommends 4 disks (raid 10) for Database and 2 disks (raid 1) for Logs. Which means i will need a total of 12 disks (6 disks each) for active and passive mailbox servers. Isn't a more expensive approach for my storage investment? 1 entire storage enclosure just for my Exchange design.. Just don't make sense to me to tell customer to invest the number of disks on Exchange 2007. As Exchange2007 preach, no requirements for storage in CCR design. But now , we have to invest so much in storage for CCR deisgn. regards, Chua > Probably lots more. > > In other words you need more physical hard drives. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >>>> >> > >>>> >> Oliver Exchange 2007 doesn't require more disks than Exchange 2003 for the same load in any situation, and if you add memory, you should be able to install fewer. SignatureEd Crowley MVP "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems." . > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> Oliver However, For exchange CCR for sure is recommened to use 2 different set of disks for Active n passive mailboxes.. so it is consider more disk needed than 2003 clusters. isn't it? Reg, Chua > Exchange 2007 doesn't require more disks than Exchange 2003 for the same > load in any situation, and if you add memory, you should be able to install [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> Oliver That's true, but you get a level of redundancy that you don't get with SCC. I've never understood the business value of SCC, but CCR seems like it has a compelling story even with the extra cost for storage. SignatureEd Crowley MVP "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems." . > However, For exchange CCR for sure is recommened to use 2 different set of > disks for Active n passive mailboxes.. so it is consider more disk needed [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> Oliver I would question the cost comment, Ed. If Chua were to use DAS instead of a SAN for disk, the cost could be greatly reduced for CCR. While many folks feel they need the SAN to protect data, that really goes back to when the only clustering option was SCC or MSCS with that horrid single point of failure in the database. With CCR, there are two copies of the data, and two copies of data on tier 2 storage are always better than one copy of data on tier 1 storage. Chua, is there any reason you're tied to the SAN? There's really no need to use it for CCR clusters - it's prohibitively expensive and harder to manage. DAS tends to be a better solution for CCR. Missy (waiting for Ed to slam me for waiting so long to jump in the thread) > That's true, but you get a level of redundancy that you don't get with > SCC. I've never understood the business value of SCC, but CCR seems like [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] >>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> Oliver At least you didn't say SATA. >I would question the cost comment, Ed. If Chua were to use DAS instead of a >SAN for disk, the cost could be greatly reduced for CCR. While many folks [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Oliver Personal flaw on my part, that. > At least you didn't say SATA. > [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> Oliver Those are fine for disk-based backups, though! SignatureEd Crowley MVP "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems." . > At least you didn't say SATA. > [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> Oliver Without a doubt! > Those are fine for disk-based backups, though! >> At least you didn't say SATA. [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] >>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>> >> Oliver I agree completely. SignatureEd Crowley MVP "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems." . >I would question the cost comment, Ed. If Chua were to use DAS instead of a >SAN for disk, the cost could be greatly reduced for CCR. While many folks [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Oliver How many users, and what is the expected volume of mails? Since you are so constrained in the number of disks available to you, have you thought about doing SCC instead of CCR? In CCR, you want to try as much as possible to have similar server configurations, but because this is not a strict requirement, you should still be able to do what you descirbed below. It is just not an optimal configuration IMO. Deji > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > regards, > Chua Your responses might be a bit more useful if you don't wait 19 days after the original post. SignatureEd Crowley MVP "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems." . > How many users, and what is the expected volume of mails? Since you are so > constrained in the number of disks available to you, have you thought [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >> regards, >> Chua |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.