hardware recommendation

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

rick - 20 Dec 2005 22:34 GMT

Hi

I have both Windows enterprise 2003 SP1 and Exchange enterprise 2003 SP1

Total of mailboxes=1800
Size of mailbox=50mb

I'm thinking the following hardware configuration on BE server

2*36gb raid 1 for OS, Exchange software, pagefile
2*36gb raid 1 for transation logs
4*150gb raid 10 for Database
all hardrives are running at 15K
Server=HP Proliant 570 2*3Ghz Intel Xeon CPUs
HP smart array 6402/128mb controller

Many thanks for your help!
rick

Reply to this Message

Jonathan Norris - 21 Dec 2005 02:40 GMT

Cheers to see you using running Raid 0+1. How many spindles are you using
for the DBs?

Is it Fibre or Scsi? What is your user profile for IOPS?

I can calculate it for you if you want.

Signature

Jonathan
No Warrenties Implied

> Hi
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> Many thanks for your help!
> rick

Reply to this Message

rick - 21 Dec 2005 21:19 GMT

4 hot swappable 150gb drives and SCSI. IOPS - I'd say average(0.5 with 50mb
mailbox size) since I don't have a live server to test. What is better, 0+1
or 1+0? Or they mean the same? Could you please tell if this hardware setup
for OS/Logs/DB in raid 1/1/0+1 is good enough or it needs more ram, cpu,
disk space for the DB, especially due peak hours. Also, could you show me
how do calculate IOPS as I'm totally new to Exchange. Thanks a lot for your
help.

Cheers,

rick

> Cheers to see you using running Raid 0+1. How many spindles are you using
> for the DBs?
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>> Many thanks for your help!
>> rick

Reply to this Message

Jonathan Norris - 21 Dec 2005 22:01 GMT

I must have missed this thread sorry, Please see the comments below.

Signature

Jonathan
No Warrenties Implied, Did you do a FULL backup today??????

> 4 hot swappable 150gb drives and SCSI. IOPS - I'd say average(0.5 with 50mb
> mailbox size) since I don't have a live server to test. What is better, 0+1
> or 1+0?

.25 - .50 IOPS is typical in most environments, from my experience. Also
smaller mailbox limits will decrease the IOPS.

They are the same thing also known as Raid 10.

Or they mean the same? Could you please tell if this hardware setup

> for OS/Logs/DB in raid 1/1/0+1 is good enough or it needs more ram, cpu,

The best practice for Disk layout is to use seperate Disk groups for OS,
Logs, and DB. Since you are limited with your hardware this may not be
possible.

Raid 10 will give you the best performance and fault tolerance. This is the
most expensive way to go but it is needed in large environments with a high
user load and high IOPS. This solution will give you the least amount of
usable space.

Raid 5 will give you fault tolerance, people use this for the DBs and
sometimes OS
Raid 1 will give you some fault tolerance, but the performace is better than
Raid 5, typically people use this for logs

Exchange will only use 4GB of ram, if you use more then its actually just as
bad as not enough (deminishing returns)

> disk space for the DB, especially due peak hours. Also, could you show me
> how do calculate IOPS as I'm totally new to Exchange. Thanks a lot for your
> help.

Typically people look at their exisiting environment to see what they are
using.

It would help me to know how many users you plan on supporting.

Also a little note about Storage Group and Database Design. You want to
keep your database small so in the event of a failure you can recover the DB
quickly.

> Cheers,
>
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> >> Many thanks for your help!
> >> rick

Reply to this Message

Jonathan Norris - 21 Dec 2005 22:35 GMT

I finally found my calculator and this is what I got (keep in mind this is
just for fun right???) Please don't take this as advice just as a learning
experience.

For a user profile of .5
Mailbox Size of 50 MB (average)
1800 users with no growth
One Server with Raid 1 for OS and another Raid 1 for Logs and Raid 10 (0+1)
for the Databases (Storage Group Location)

It would require 10 Disks in a Raid 10 or 14 Disks for Raid 5 for
Performance and Storage both. When I calculated this I put in only 1 Storage
Group and 4 databases so its possible you may want to split this up and have
more than one SG.

Also your databases will be on average 20 GB per DB assuming you split them
down the middle.

Keep in mind this will require an additional Raid 1 for the Transaction Logs
and an Additional Raid 10 container for the SG.

Keep in mind I reccommend you do more research and don't take this as set in
stone. You may consider hiring a consultant to at least help you with the
design part, it could help you get on the right path and make it easier to
get up to speed.

Good luck and happy learning!

Signature

Jonathan
No Warrenties Implied, Did you do a FULL backup today??????

> Cheers to see you using running Raid 0+1. How many spindles are you using
> for the DBs?
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> > Many thanks for your help!
> > rick

Reply to this Message

Jonathan Norris - 21 Dec 2005 02:43 GMT

Also if you are in a SAN environment you could also split your SMTP and
possibly PF to another RAID set.

Not sure of your hardware limitations. Also let me know if you need help
with SG and DB design. I can give you pointers there too.

Enjoy!

Signature

Jonathan
No Warrenties Implied

> Hi
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> Many thanks for your help!
> rick

Reply to this Message

rick - 21 Dec 2005 21:19 GMT

No, we do not have SAN setup and I don't know how to set it up either. Do
you know any URLs out there which tell you step-by-set how to setup SAN
network with Exchnage? I'm sorry, what is SG? Yes, I need help with SG and
DB design. Your help is greatly apprecaited.

Cheers,

rick

> Also if you are in a SAN environment you could also split your SMTP and
> possibly PF to another RAID set.
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>> Many thanks for your help!
>> rick

Reply to this Message

Jonathan Norris - 21 Dec 2005 21:46 GMT

You should start off by reviewing the following MS whitepapers it has of
really informative stuff for people new to Exchange 2003.

Exchange 2003 Planning Guide
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/exchange/2003/library/messsyst.mspx

Exchange Deployment Guide
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=77B6D819-C7B3-42D1-8FBB
-FE6339FFA1ED&displaylang=en

As far as the Storage Area Network SAN it really depends if your environment
requires it. For smaller environments < 4000 users typically it is not a
cost effective solution since it does get expensive. I was just asking you
if you currently are using this in your environment.

Read the documents and then we can discuss your specific questions. There
is so much to consider when it comes to planning.

How many users do you currently have in your environment.

Signature

Jonathan
No Warrenties Implied, Did you do a FULL backup today??????

> No, we do not have SAN setup and I don't know how to set it up either. Do
> you know any URLs out there which tell you step-by-set how to setup SAN
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> >> Many thanks for your help!
> >> rick

Reply to this Message

John Fullbright - 13 Jan 2006 19:06 GMT

Much of the cost of implementing a SAN is the fibre channel infrastructure.
You may want to look at iSCSI SAN solutions.

> You should start off by reviewing the following MS whitepapers it has of
> really informative stuff for people new to Exchange 2003.
[quoted text clipped - 55 lines]
>> >> Many thanks for your help!
>> >> rick

Reply to this Message

Jonathan Norris - 21 Dec 2005 22:02 GMT

You may consider using an External Array with that many users.

Signature

Jonathan
No Warrenties Implied, Did you do a FULL backup today??????

Reply to this Message