 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Server Forum / Exchange Server / Design / February 2007How big should I make "System Files" Volume
We are sizing our servers for 4000 uses, with 1GB mailboxes, 30 storage groups with 1 mailbox store each and CCR. How much space should I allocate for the system files per storage group? And what kind of transaction performance do these LUNS need? Thanks!!! >We are sizing our servers for 4000 uses, with 1GB mailboxes, 30 storage >groups with 1 mailbox store each and CCR. How much space should I allocate >for the system files per storage group? And what kind of transaction >performance do these LUNS need? > >Thanks!!! Define "system files" volume? And the transaction logs for that much traffic are going to need a shed load of spindles to sit on. You're proposing putting upwards of 5TB (inc DIRT) of databases on each server so you will have some serious storage if your use of the plural "servers" wasn't a typo. thanks, yea I know, this is not a mom and pop shop running small buss. server. We have 2 EMC CX40 arrays with 168 disk in each one. I understand how to size edb and log LUNS I just can find anything on sizing the System luns. The one that gets set when you set up a new storage group. > >We are sizing our servers for 4000 uses, with 1GB mailboxes, 30 storage > >groups with 1 mailbox store each and CCR. How much space should I allocate [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 5TB (inc DIRT) of databases on each server so you will have some > serious storage if your use of the plural "servers" wasn't a typo. You're not making it easy... When I set up a new SG, I don't put it on the "System" luns. System to me is the, well, system a.k.a. Operating System. In your case, you're mixing and matching terms to the point that you could mean all kinds of things. For example, you may be referring to the binaries of the application. You may be referring to the stm placement locations. You may be referring to the location for something else altogether, but whatever you're referring to, you'll need to give an example so that your terms and those of everyone else match. Al > thanks, > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> 5TB (inc DIRT) of databases on each server so you will have some >> serious storage if your use of the plural "servers" wasn't a typo. Thanks for the reply, this has made for a fund day. Sorry for being so vague. When you create a Exchange storage group you have to specify two folder paths. One for log files and one for “System Path”. Not the binary files used to run exchange not the system files for the operating system. I agree it is a bad term, but I don’t know what else to call it. Try this, Right click on a storage group in the “General” tab you will see two fields that require a folder path. One of them is for transaction log files. The other one is for the System path location. I assume that Exchange uses this for something “really” important, so I want to make sure I allocate a. enough space and b. enough performance so that my users will be happy little Outlook users. Maybe 2007 (and I mean Exchange 2007) does not even need this, I have seen reference of TMP folder (not to be confused with c:\TEMP, or your IE temporary internet files because I would post that question in a different newsgroup), but again I’m not sure how much of a resource you would need for that folder either… Maybe I should just get a USB hub and stick some flash drives in my server just in case I need a Gig or 2… Just kidding have a good weekend > You're not making it easy... > When I set up a new SG, I don't put it on the "System" luns. System to me [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > >> 5TB (inc DIRT) of databases on each server so you will have some > >> serious storage if your use of the plural "servers" wasn't a typo. LOL. I generally put the system files on the same LUNs I intend for my db's. Since each installation of that size is going to be unique, you'll want to implement careful monitoring to ensure that you have the appropriate drive configuration mated to the application regardless of the starting point you use. Also, if you haven't seen this yet, it's worth it to have a look: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/1c471676-2312-4ffe-adf2-15a9cfd529c4.aspx > Thanks for the reply, this has made for a fund day. > [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] >> >> 5TB (inc DIRT) of databases on each server so you will have some >> >> serious storage if your use of the plural "servers" wasn't a typo. >LOL. I generally put the system files on the same LUNs I intend for my >db's. Since each installation of that size is going to be unique, you'll [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Also, if you haven't seen this yet, it's worth it to have a look: >http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/1c471676-2312-4ffe-adf2-15a9cfd529c4.aspx Yup, that entry for System Path tells the server where to put the checkpoint so I tend to keep that checkpoint away from where the transaction logs are. Hi Mark & Al, What are your reasonings for not using the same locations for t-logs and the checkpoint? I can't see any gain from separating them. MS even recommend that they be kept together. http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/exchange/Analyzer/95fca90b-ae50-4bc f-b7b8-62cab0dcf411.mspx?mfr=true /Simon >>LOL. I generally put the system files on the same LUNs I intend for my >>db's. Since each installation of that size is going to be unique, you'll [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > checkpoint so I tend to keep that checkpoint away from where the > transaction logs are. Thanks Simon!!! that is what I was looking for some documentation with a recommendation where to point that path. > Hi Mark & Al, > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > checkpoint so I tend to keep that checkpoint away from where the > > transaction logs are. >Hi Mark & Al, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/exchange/Analyzer/95fca90b-ae50-4bc f-b7b8-62cab0dcf411.mspx?mfr=true Oh that's easy to answer. I'm stupid and got them the wrong damn way around. Accept the apologies of an old man. Ok, then I take it you have seen the Exchange Team's sizing tool. http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2007/01/15/432207.aspx I get 23 storage groups of 1 database each with a db LUN (to include "system files") of 296GB and a log lun of 38.5GB. The total DB IOPS requirement is 2308, and the total log IOPS requirement is 762. Total database disk space is 6824GB, total log disk space is 848gb, and total restore lun disk space is 2335GB Why do you need 336 spindles? I don't think you cam buy 36G drives any more, so it's not space vs drive size. 60 to 150 spindles (depends on the drives from 15K SCSI to 7200 RPM SATA) gets you there on the performance side, so that's not it either. > thanks, > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> 5TB (inc DIRT) of databases on each server so you will have some >> serious storage if your use of the plural "servers" wasn't a typo. Raid 10, divide by 2. CCR Divide by 2 again... > Ok, then I take it you have seen the Exchange Team's sizing tool. > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > >> 5TB (inc DIRT) of databases on each server so you will have some > >> serious storage if your use of the plural "servers" wasn't a typo. With a total IOPS requirement of 3100 and amd RAID 10, that make 30ish spindles on each end (assumes 15K spindles @ 130 IOPS/spindle with a 20 ms response max response time) or a 60 spindle total requirement from a performance perspective. If you go with 10K RPM spindles it's 80 or so. How many clones are in the design and how much space/performance do they require? The inefficiency of clones on the platform would explain the need for 336 spindles in the design. > Raid 10, divide by 2. CCR Divide by 2 again... > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >> >> 5TB (inc DIRT) of databases on each server so you will have some >> >> serious storage if your use of the plural "servers" wasn't a typo. |
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.