Hardware validation - Exchange 2007

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Ariel - 08 Nov 2006 19:58 GMT

Hi all,

I have been assigned the task of designing the hardware for our new exchange
server. It will be running Exchange 2007, in testing first, and then we'll
move it to production.

We have 300 users now, but we will plan it for 600 users because we're
growing fast. The mailbox size is now 200MB, it will probably be larger on
the new server but that is not defined yet.

This is what I came up with:

Dell PowerEdge 2900
2 x Xeon 5130 (2.0GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 4MB Cache)
8GB RAM (4 x 2GB FBDIMM)
2 x 36GB SAS 15K in RAID 0 for the Operating System
4 x 300GB SAS 10K in RAID 10 for the database
2 x 36GB SAS 15K in RAID 0 for the logs
Dual Gigabit NIC, redundant power supply, etc.

My boss is now asking me if there is some way to "validate" this
configuration with microsoft, but I don't think so, with exchange 2007 being
beta and all.

My questions are:

1- Do you think this configuration is ok for 600 users?

2- Is there, or will be, a server validation program for exchange 2007?

Thanks for all the help.

Reply to this Message

Ariel - 08 Nov 2006 21:28 GMT

Please replace "RAID 0" with "RAID 1" in my previous post.

> Hi all,
>
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>
> Thanks for all the help.

Reply to this Message

Bharat Suneja [MVP] - 09 Nov 2006 03:42 GMT

Comments inline.

Signature

Bharat Suneja
MVP - Exchange
www.zenprise.com
NEW blog location:
www.exchangepedia.com/blog
----------------------------------------------

> Hi all,
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> 2 x Xeon 5130 (2.0GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 4MB Cache)
> 8GB RAM (4 x 2GB FBDIMM)

> 2 x 36GB SAS 15K in RAID 0 for the Operating System
> 4 x 300GB SAS 10K in RAID 10 for the database
> 2 x 36GB SAS 15K in RAID 0 for the logs

For both instances above where you plan to use RAID0 - I hope you're aware
RAID0 does not offer any redundancy - it's just striping across the 2 disks
which only offers performance advantages. At the least you want RAID1
mirroring for the OS and t-logs.

For the volume with the t-logs, you would need to calculate the current rate
of growth in t-logs daily, estimate what it would be when you're up to 600
users, and factor in the number of days you can go without a backup (for
cases when backups fail and are either not detected/fixed for whatever
reason).

Another thing to consider - will you be using LCR (Local Continuous
Replication)? It would make sense to include that in your planning as well -
which means you'll need an extra volume, preferably the same size as the one
your production Store(s) reside on, to hold the LCR replica. This provides
excellent disaster recovery capability - you simply switch to the replica in
case of a disaster without worrying about restoring backups. Additionally,
backups can be done from the replica instead of the production store. LCR
will also need extra CPU cycles.

> Dual Gigabit NIC, redundant power supply, etc.
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Thanks for all the help.

Reply to this Message

Ariel - 09 Nov 2006 11:02 GMT

Bharat:
Thanks for your help, it's really appreciated. I meant to say RAID
1 but got confused. About the logs, there is circular logging now in our
current server, so I don't know how big they get. We make daily full backups
with ntbackup, do you think I should try disabling circular logging now to
calculate the log size for our 300 users? I've always been told to use the
smallest, fastest drive available for log files, is it possible that 36GB is
not enough to hold the logs for at least a couple of days?

I learned about LCR in a recent exchange 2007 course, but I don't
think we have the monetary resources right now to implement it. Besides, the
server has no more space for internal storage.

> Comments inline.
>
[quoted text clipped - 53 lines]
> >
> > Thanks for all the help.

Reply to this Message

Bharat Suneja [MVP] - 09 Nov 2006 15:39 GMT

After posting I saw the follow-up post from you clarifying you actually
meant RAID1 :)

- Did you enable circular logging because of shortage of space or any other
reason? If disaster recovery is important, you shouldn't be using it.
- Depending on your mail traffic/user profile - if the server generates
about 5 gigs of t-logs a day, with 36 gigs you should be good for over a
week. However, you need to determine what that *average* daily number is
(and also monitor what the upper bound or high number is - days when traffic
spikes). Again, this is only an issue when backups fail for whatever reason
and this goes undetected or not fixed for a number of days.
- Smallest, fastest drives are good for better performance. Besides storage
performance, you also need to think about storage space - as long as the
aggregate size of the volume provides the space you need for now and
forseeable future.

Signature

Bharat Suneja
MVP - Exchange
www.zenprise.com
NEW blog location:
www.exchangepedia.com/blog
----------------------------------------------

> Bharat:
> Thanks for your help, it's really appreciated. I meant to say
[quoted text clipped - 82 lines]
>> >
>> > Thanks for all the help.

Reply to this Message

Ariel - 09 Nov 2006 15:57 GMT

I didn't enable circular logging, it was enabled by the previous admin. I
will enable it and watch the logs carefully. I always check the backups daily.

Thanks for all your advice.

And about validating the configuration, can you help me with that?

> After posting I saw the follow-up post from you clarifying you actually
> meant RAID1 :)
[quoted text clipped - 98 lines]
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for all the help.

Reply to this Message

Bharat Suneja [MVP] - 09 Nov 2006 16:18 GMT

Not sure what you mean by "validate".

When planning a deployment and new server purchase, you need to look at CPU,
memory, storage, and depending upon your organizational requirements -
redundancy, management capabilities, et al.

As far as CPU goes, 2 dual core Xeons (that's 4 processor cores) should be
able to support thousands of users. The 8 Gig of RAM is more than adequate
to support the 600 users you want to plan for.

More server planning info in Exchange 2007 documentation:
Planning processor and memory configurations
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/exchange/e2k7help/77045645-48f6-47e
f-b32b-70f58d0392ab.mspx

Planning disk storage
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/exchange/e2k7help/c5a9c0ed-e43e-4bc
7-99fe-7d1a9cb967f8.mspx

Signature

Bharat Suneja
MVP - Exchange
www.zenprise.com
NEW blog location:
www.exchangepedia.com/blog
----------------------------------------------

>I didn't enable circular logging, it was enabled by the previous admin. I
> will enable it and watch the logs carefully. I always check the backups
[quoted text clipped - 124 lines]
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks for all the help.

Reply to this Message

Ariel - 09 Nov 2006 17:19 GMT

Bharat:
Those documents you point me to seem to reference a much larger
installation than mine. I'm trying to build the best configuration I can
without purchasing one server for each role and a SAN.

When you want to deploy a server for less than 50 users, you just
buy one of the current server models and you know that it's gonna be enough.
When you want to deploy for > 10.000 users, there is a lot of documents
explaining how to dimension each of the many servers and storage arrays that
you need.

But I need to support 600 users, and I can't find enough
documentation to even know if it's possible to do so in a single server with
internal storage. The only documents I could find about an installation of
this size are about Exchange 2003, and from what I read, there are big
changes in memory and I/O use between 2003 and 2007.

Thanks for taking the time to reply,

Ariel.

> Not sure what you mean by "validate".
>
[quoted text clipped - 141 lines]
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks for all the help.

Reply to this Message

Bharat Suneja [MVP] - 09 Nov 2006 18:00 GMT

>>The only documents I could find about an installation of
> this size are about Exchange 2003, and from what I read, there are big
> changes in memory and I/O use between 2003 and 2007.

The product has not been released. It would be pre-mature to expect detailed
performance & sizing documentation for deployments of all sizes, imo.

Having said that - here's what we know about disk I/O - it has been reduced
signficantly, as much as 70% according to Microsoft. You can use a ballpark
figure to arrive at the kind of disk I/O you need by using a conservative
figure. It wouldn't be wrong to say if you size storage based on Exchange
Server 2003, it will be quite adequate for Exchange Server 2007.

As far as memory is concerned, the guidance is already out there. 8 Gigs in
your case for 600 users (2 Gigs + between 2 Mb/user for light users and 5
Mb/user for heavy users) should be more than adequate, and so will the quad
CPUs (2 x dual core Xeons). Details are in the doc link I posted earlier.

Signature

Bharat Suneja
MVP - Exchange
www.zenprise.com
NEW blog location:
www.exchangepedia.com/blog
----------------------------------------------

> Bharat:
> Those documents you point me to seem to reference a much larger
[quoted text clipped - 189 lines]
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Thanks for all the help.

Reply to this Message

Ariel - 09 Nov 2006 18:12 GMT

Thank you! That's exactly what I needed. I feel reassured now... :)

> >>The only documents I could find about an installation of
> > this size are about Exchange 2003, and from what I read, there are big
[quoted text clipped - 206 lines]
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Thanks for all the help.

Reply to this Message