Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsWindows Server 2003Windows 2000Windows NTSmall Business ServerVirtual ServerExchange ServerIISHost Integration ServerISA ServerSMSWSUSMOMWindows Media ServerSecurityCertification
Related Topics
SQL ServerMS WindowsMS OfficePC HardwareMore Topics ...

Windows Server Forum / Exchange Server / Design / March 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

RAID and Partition

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
jc - 20 Jan 2006 00:30 GMT
Can some one confirm following configuration is effection for 100 Exchange
2003 users?
- 6 ea SCSI 73G ea RAID system
- RAID 1 (disk0 and disk1) for OS, Logs and Queue
- RAID 10 (disk 2,3,4,5) for data

Question:
- Should I partition RAID1 to C: (20G) for OS, D: for others, any advantage
- Is it better to have RAID 5 (instead RAID10) with HotSpare, so I have
better protection?

Thanks,
JimmyChang
John Fullbright - 20 Jan 2006 01:15 GMT
I like to keep the logs seperate.  With only 100 users you may want to
consider

a mirror for the OS and smtp queue
a mirror for the logs
a mirror for the databases

If we assume 10K drives, a mirror will give you:

writes = 85*2/2 or 85 IOPS
reads =  85*2 04 170 IOPS

With a 3:1 read/write ratio for the database applied:

(170*.75) + (85*.25) = 127.5 + 21.25 = 148.75 IOPS

> Can some one confirm following configuration is effection for 100 Exchange
> 2003 users?
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Thanks,
> JimmyChang
Kerry Hoskin - 21 Jan 2006 17:02 GMT
similair question.

DELL PE2800 with 8*36Gb 15k disks around 180 mailboxes.

Thinking of RAID 1 for OS,Pagefile

and then either RAID 10 for the remaning 6 disks with partitions for logs
and DB or RAID 1 for logs and RAID 5+ hotspare

>I like to keep the logs seperate.  With only 100 users you may want to
>consider
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>> Thanks,
>> JimmyChang
John Fullbright - 21 Jan 2006 21:01 GMT
RAID 1 for OS/Page File.
RAID 1 for Logs
RAID 0+1 For DBs

When you build out the 2800, don't use Server Assist.  Server Assist starts
with a FAT partition that is later converted to NTFS.  This results in an
allocation unit size, or cluster size, of 512 bytes.  IO to the page file is
4K.  When an IO request larger than the allocation unit size hits the file
system driver, it splits the request into multiple smaller requests.  In
this case, each time a page is swapped that's 8 IOs instead of 1.  You want
a 4K allocation unit size on the OS partition, which by the way, is the NTFS
default.

> similair question.
>
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
>>> Thanks,
>>> JimmyChang
Kerry Hoskin - 21 Jan 2006 21:20 GMT
cheers for the tip about server assist, I'll watch out for that,altohuth I'm
not expecting much paging as the server has 3Gb Ram

cheers

Kerry

> RAID 1 for OS/Page File.
> RAID 1 for Logs
[quoted text clipped - 49 lines]
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> JimmyChang
Kerry Hoskin - 23 Jan 2006 15:46 GMT
any recommendations as to the stripe size to use for the RAID 10 set?

Kerry

> RAID 1 for OS/Page File.
> RAID 1 for Logs
[quoted text clipped - 49 lines]
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> JimmyChang
John Fullbright - 23 Jan 2006 16:00 GMT
A relatively large multiple of 4K.

> any recommendations as to the stripe size to use for the RAID 10 set?
>
[quoted text clipped - 54 lines]
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> JimmyChang
Kerry Hoskin - 23 Jan 2006 17:00 GMT
default is a stripe size of 64k

>A relatively large multiple of 4K.
>
[quoted text clipped - 56 lines]
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> JimmyChang
John Fullbright - 23 Jan 2006 17:35 GMT
which is 16x 4K. should be fine.

> default is a stripe size of 64k
>
[quoted text clipped - 58 lines]
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> JimmyChang
jc - 01 Mar 2006 09:36 GMT
Thak you all!
I think since I have 6 drives, probably the best to do 2+2+2 so to get the
best performance and still have mirror protection.

> which is 16x 4K. should be fine.
>
[quoted text clipped - 60 lines]
> >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>> JimmyChang
 
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.