|
Home > Archive > microsoft.public.exchange2000.admin > October 2002 > Exchange disk subsystem question...
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Exchange disk subsystem question...
|
|
|
| OK- I know that one key to a good disk configuration for Exchange is
separating out the sequential I/O for transaction logging versus the random
I/O for database reads/writes. That seems straightforward- one RAID 1 or
RAID 5 volume for transaction log files and a separate RAID 5 volume for
Exchange databases.
Here is my question: How critical is separating out the RAID channels that
support these volumes? Say you have one RAID enclosure full of disks
directly connected to your Exchange server via a single channel RAID
controller. Does configuring two volumes in that physical RAID over that
single channel RAID controller equal _not_ really separating out the I/O?
Since it would all be occurring over that single RAID channel? In that
config do you still get the benefit of separate read/write operations across
the separate volumes?
Hope my question makes some sense! Exchange architect gurus out there-
thanks for your answers...
| |
| Gary McDonnell 2002-10-05, 8:31 pm |
| It's better to have separate RAID channels for the two drive sets, but it's
not fundamentally necessary. It really gets down to how heavily the server
is going to be used, i.e., how many mailboxes and how many messages they're
going to be sending and receiving, and down to how much money you want to
spend to maximize throughput.
If I had to choose between having the logs and database on a single RAID 5
array and having the setup you describe I'd certainly go with your setup.
Would you mind posting some parameters - how many mailboxes will be on the
server, is it a dedicated Exchange server or does it do other functions such
as Active Directory, DNS, file & print, etc., what the average size of the
mailbox will be? That will help greatly.
/gary mcdonnell
---------------
"Mike" <merter at wizards.com> wrote in message
news:uJsLR3USCHA.1792@tkmsftngp13...
OK- I know that one key to a good disk configuration for Exchange is
separating out the sequential I/O for transaction logging versus the random
I/O for database reads/writes. That seems straightforward- one RAID 1 or
RAID 5 volume for transaction log files and a separate RAID 5 volume for
Exchange databases.
Here is my question: How critical is separating out the RAID channels that
support these volumes? Say you have one RAID enclosure full of disks
directly connected to your Exchange server via a single channel RAID
controller. Does configuring two volumes in that physical RAID over that
single channel RAID controller equal _not_ really separating out the I/O?
Since it would all be occurring over that single RAID channel? In that
config do you still get the benefit of separate read/write operations across
the separate volumes?
Hope my question makes some sense! Exchange architect gurus out there-
thanks for your answers...
| |
|
| There are approximately 750 mailboxes on the server. I haven't done a good
job benchmarking how many messages my users send and recieve over any given
duration though. I do know the box is pretty busy based on just standing in
front of it and watching the disk activity on the current RAIDs.
-Mike
"Gary McDonnell" <garymcdonnell@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eZqTiGVSCHA.1428@tkmsftngp12...
> It's better to have separate RAID channels for the two drive sets, but
it's
> not fundamentally necessary. It really gets down to how heavily the server
> is going to be used, i.e., how many mailboxes and how many messages
they're
> going to be sending and receiving, and down to how much money you want to
> spend to maximize throughput.
>
> If I had to choose between having the logs and database on a single RAID 5
> array and having the setup you describe I'd certainly go with your setup.
>
> Would you mind posting some parameters - how many mailboxes will be on the
> server, is it a dedicated Exchange server or does it do other functions
such
> as Active Directory, DNS, file & print, etc., what the average size of the
> mailbox will be? That will help greatly.
>
> /gary mcdonnell
> ---------------
>
> "Mike" <merter at wizards.com> wrote in message
> news:uJsLR3USCHA.1792@tkmsftngp13...
> OK- I know that one key to a good disk configuration for Exchange is
> separating out the sequential I/O for transaction logging versus the
random
> I/O for database reads/writes. That seems straightforward- one RAID 1 or
> RAID 5 volume for transaction log files and a separate RAID 5 volume for
> Exchange databases.
>
> Here is my question: How critical is separating out the RAID channels that
> support these volumes? Say you have one RAID enclosure full of disks
> directly connected to your Exchange server via a single channel RAID
> controller. Does configuring two volumes in that physical RAID over that
> single channel RAID controller equal _not_ really separating out the I/O?
> Since it would all be occurring over that single RAID channel? In that
> config do you still get the benefit of separate read/write operations
across
> the separate volumes?
>
> Hope my question makes some sense! Exchange architect gurus out there-
> thanks for your answers...
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
|