Speaking of Exchange...
Any good resources for Exchange info? (IE real world lessons, etc) I just got told today that we are going to be leaving a company we just bought on Exchange instead of migrating them to lotus notes (Talk about dodging a bullet). Sadly I have not done Exchange work since E2000, since I have been working at a large Notes shop for the past few years.
My excitement is....I will get back to Exchange and outlook as Lotus Notes feels like I am using Email/Calendaring circa 1998. :(
I'm going to grab the deployment guides, but I am concerned with catching up all I don't know, and how it will affect my AD environment. I'm afraid the timelines are quite aggressive so I need to get moving.
Jef
---------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 23:33:09 -0400
There is quite a bit of docs out there on designing good disk subsystems for Exchange. It comes down to how many IOPS are needed. If your design isn't around that, you will probably end up with issues.
Sorry to bounce off topic.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of HBooGz
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 6:56 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
But what would you recommend for Exchange hard drive config ?
even better where i can look for information on how to troubleshoot ( what to look for ) the diisk subsystem on an exchange box.
Thanks.
On 5/18/06, joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Classic Exchange type design. ;o)
For AD, I pretty generally recommend people do a single 0+1/10[1] first and
then 5 second and go with either because usually they don't have enough
slots for the disk internally to break it all up into a bunch of 1's and I
prefer the disk internal for AD and you want as many spindles in the set as
possible.
The good thing is that 0+1 will stand up to the IO (mostly DIT read) load
that you get out of even really busy DCs. I may change my thoughts after I
start seeing big x64 machines cruising along, haven't seen any yet in
customer sites. The log load on DCs is usually miniscule except in cases I
have heard of ~Eric testing some funky stuff in EEC and actually getting log
write ops into triple digits. Ditto for OS too unless you are doing a bunch
of other stuff on the DC.
For file sharing, I would consider 0+1 but 5 would be more likely since you
probably want/need the space more than the speed. File sharing doesn't
really beat the disks up relative to a busy DC even in large multi-thousand
user file servers I have seen. It is why most normal server admins really
have no clue what to look for in terms of IO load on servers but any
Exchange Admin worth anything is looking at that right away in a problem
situation and able to quote IOPS stats off the top of their head and know
what they can get from the underlying disk subsystem. Exchange disk configs
are critical.
Anyway, I don't have a problem with 5 for file servers. There is definitely
a hit on rebuild but you have to ask yourself how often you expect that and
whether or not it is acceptable that you take a hit when you are in that
mode. I consider the fault tolerance for emergencies, not something I have
to deal with weekly. If there are other benefits I want from 5 (say reduced
cost for the space) and having slower rebuild is acceptable then that is
perfectly fine. If you need something that is entirely transparent then you
look at other solutions and you start spending more money.
As for logically partitioning the underlying disk. Not sure what kind of
security gains you are expecting there. Nothing I can think of off the top
of my head. No perf gain except for the possible perf gains in doing a
volume chkdsk or backup/restore of individual volumes maybe. The
partitioning for logical separate of binaries in data can be a good thing.
Kind of nice to know that you absolutely need the D drive back but the C
could be a complete fresh rebuild.
joe
[1] Assuming they wouldn't consider a straight stripe set, recall DCs are
all duplicates and a big stripe set is going to be the fastest...
--
O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition -
http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] On Behalf Of Carlos Magalhaes
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 2:02 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
I know this is not exactly the RAID 5 Best practices but this is how I
usually setup and recommend the customers to setup their disks (if they can
afford the hardware)
RAID1 for the OS
RAID1 for the logs
RAID0+1 for the database
Carlos
Brian Desmond wrote:
>
> I always do 12GB for C and the rest for D for 'Data'. I can format C
> and not worry about the Data.
>
> *Thanks,**
> *Brian Desmond**
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> *c - 312.731.3132*
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
> *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] *On Behalf Of *Timothy
> Foster
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 18, 2006 1:29 PM
> *To:* ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> *Subject:* RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
>
> Thanks, Brian. That makes sense.
>
> So if I have a 4 disk array on a single backplane, and given that I
> want the benefits of RAID 5, is there any argument for configuring
> more than one partition on the array? I realize that this is
> potentially too much of an open-ended question, but I'm curious :-).
> The basic premise is that this server would be a workhorse domain
> member/file server. Would one partition - C: - combined with carefully
> configured share and NTFS permissions provide adequate security? Or is
> it better to put the OS on C: and the shares on D: ? Or does the
> benefit of partitions lie somewhere else - for example, if I wanted to
> wipe C: and reinstall the OS without touching D: ? (I'm not sure if I
> like this idea, but as I mentioned, I'm curious...).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tim
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
> *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] *On Behalf Of *Brian
> Desmond
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 18, 2006 12:53 PM
> *To:* ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> *Subject:* RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
>
> Tim-
>
> It doesn't really matter. The RAID controller has no idea about the
> partition table. It just presents a LUN to the OS and the OS writes to it.
>
> *Thanks,**
> *Brian Desmond**
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> *c - 312.731.3132*
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
> *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] *On Behalf Of *Timothy
> Foster
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 18, 2006 12:19 PM
> *To:* ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> *Subject:* [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice
>
> Using a RAID controller's configuration utility I can build and
> initialize a RAID 5 container. When installing the OS, I can, if I
> choose, create a partition. Is this a good or bad idea? In other
> words, if I partition RAID 5 container during the OS install will it
> make any difference if I ever need to replace a drive and rebuild the
> array? Will the partition table be recognized during the rebuild?
>
> Thanks for your input.
>
> Tim
>
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
--
HBooGz:\>
Join the next generation of Hotmail and you could win a trip to Africa Upgrade today
