You should never have the logs for more than one storage group on a single physical drive. You can use the same RAID set for multiple stores' databases, but because storage groups have separate sets of log files, you could take a performance hit by sharing a physical drive between two or more storage groups.
In your case, I think you could justify two storage groups for 2,000 users, but that, of course, depends on usage patterns. I think that if you wanted to implement two storage groups, however, you would absolutely require an additional RAID-1 pair for the other set of logs, and I think you would seriously want to consider another RAID-5 for the second set of databases. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Bob Chyka Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 8:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: New Exchange 2000 Install Ed, would you recommend having just one storage group with the equipment i have to work with? thanks for your insights.. BOb C. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Crowley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 11:09 AM Subject: RE: New Exchange 2000 Install > I wouldn't characterize that advantage as a "performance benefit". > > Creating two or more storage groups with that configuration could > actually reduce performance since the two would be competing for the > same log drive. > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I > Tech Consultant > hp Services > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Chris > Scharff > Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 7:42 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: New Exchange 2000 Install > > > That's not entirely true I think. Even if all databases have the same > recoverability requirements there is potential savings of restoration > time in using multiple databases or storage groups if just one edb > fails. :) > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 9:36 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: New Exchange 2000 Install > > > > With only one set of spindles for information store, there is no > > performance benefit to be had from multiple storage groups or > > databases. > > > > If you have a set of mailboxes that have differing recoverability > > requirements, you might consider making them a separate storage > > group. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bob Chyka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 9:29 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Re: New Exchange 2000 Install > > > > > > thanks i already have that article printed out. thanks for the info > > ..and yes i am going to be running advanced server with exchange > > enterprise...any insight on the breakdown of storage groups (how > > many mailboxes per) etc. > > > > thanks, > > > > BOb C. > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Ken Cornetet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 10:15 AM > > Subject: RE: New Exchange 2000 Install > > > > > > > I think you are on the right track. If you do anything different, > > > add > > more > > > RAM. > > > > > > BTW, With 3GB you will need to use the boot.ini switch /3GB, which > > requires > > > windows 2000 advance server. Otherwise, your apps (Exchange) will > > > only > > get > > > 2GB > > > > > > See > > > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;q266096 > > > for > > more > > > details. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Bob Chyka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 11:12 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: New Exchange 2000 Install > > > > > > > > > Hello everybody, > > > > > > just looking for a little guidance/insight on a new project im > > > looking > > at > > > doing. i have exchange 5.5 running at 3 different companies and > > > understand how it works, etc. > > > > > > for the college that i work for, they want me to deploy a exchange > > > 2000 server that will host 2000 mail accounts. i just need some > > > guidance of where i should go to design our server for this many > > > users and how to > > set > > > up exchange. i wanted to split the users onto a couple servers > > > but > > money > > > doesnt allow this right now. > > > > > > this is the hardware i have to work with. i have a dell 6400 with > > > dual PIII 1.0ghz xeons with 2 megs of cache. i have 3 gigs of ram > > > and 7 hard drives to work with with a perc RAID controller. i was > > > going to > > configure > > > raid 1 for the OS and another RAID 1 set for the log files, then > > > use > > > > the last 3 drives in a raid 5 config for the databases. > > > > > > i have some whitepapers from microsoft on how to set up the server > > > with that many users but they dont really get into details. any > > > help is greatly appreciated! > > > > > > thanks for your time, > > > > > > Bob C. _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
