Thanks for the response Michael. I'll make it a point to check out your book.
Please correct me if I'm wrong...are you indicating that a 15k SAS drive that previously handled 180 IOPS may only handle around 100 IOPS because of the read/write ratio? - Sean On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Michael B. Smith <[email protected] > wrote: > Yes, Exchange 2007 claimed 73% reduction over 2003. > > Microsoft has stress-tested their configuration in their l...@edu labs. > They have millions of mailboxes already running Exchange 2010. > > The point you may be missing here is that the I/O profile has changed. That > is, not only does Exchange perform fewer overall I/O's, Exchange has also > switched from being a "read-heavy" application (that is, it reads a whole > lot more than it writes) to being a "random-I/O" application (that is, reads > and writes are pretty closely balanced). > > So, it may be great that you can usually get 180 IOPS out of a 15K RPM SAS > disk - when 90% of them are reads. But how does that performance profile > change (and it does, rather dramatically) when you have 50% read I/O and 50% > write I/O ?? > > [Not mention any particular manufacturers here, but a typical value is > around 100 IOPS.] > > <advert> > I cover this concept, in detail, including how to size and calculate IOPS > for various types of disks and determine IOPS requirements, in my book > "Monitoring Exchange Server 2007 with Operations Manager 2007" in sections > named "Storage Performance" and "Storage Architecture". > > You can use the material in that section, regardless of whether you are on > 2003, 2007, or 2010 to determine your required disk farm. Just plug in the > appropriate IOPS/user into the formulas. > </advert> > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Sean Martin [[email protected]] > *Sent:* Monday, October 19, 2009 6:49 PM > > *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues > *Subject:* Re: Exchange 2007 > > Didn't E2K7 claim a 70% reduction in disk IO over E2K3? Don't most > people still recommend high performing disks in an optimal RAID > configurations for E2K7? I haven't dug into any of the documentation > regarding what stress testing Microsoft conducted to come up with those > numbers for E2K10, but I would be curious how closely it resembles actual > medium to large installations. > > For example, I only host about 2500 mailboxes in my environment. However, > we see a tremendous amount of IO which is largely due to other integrated > applications such as Symantec Enterprise Vault, CRM, RightFax, ActiveSync > and Good Mobile Messaging, Cisco Unity, etc. > > Even with Microsoft's push towards SATA, I'm inclined to consider the > application improvements as a way to minimize the number of dedicated 15k > drives I need to provide versus making the switch to a JBOD configuration > using SATA. As I stated in a previous post, we've already become accustomed > to previous hardware requirements in regards to Exchange, so we have the > back-end infrastructure to support. Just because the latest version can run > on less doesn't mean we're going to implement it on less. > > - Sean > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 2:06 PM, James Hill > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> The push for SATA is really a selling point thanks to the “up to 50% >> reduction in disk IO”. >> http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/2010/en/us/storage.aspx >> >> >> >> We have a HP-EVA as well and to me it means we may look at purchasing >> slower but larger disks for it. >> >> >> >> #4 though is definitely an issue. >> >> >> >> *From:* Sherry Abercrombie [mailto:[email protected]] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 October 2009 1:47 AM >> >> *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues >> *Subject:* Re: Exchange 2007 >> >> >> >> #4 & #7 will be a deal breaker for me. We are very heavily invested into >> an HP-EVA SAN (which is quickly running out of room), and I have a very >> large chunk of that reserved for the LCR portion of my Exchange 2007 >> environment. LCR is my primary reason for moving to E2K7. Primary E2K7 box >> will be physical, and the LCR will be virtual on the SAN. I was going to do >> both on virtual but we just don't have the space on the SAN for 2 copies of >> the data. Looking as if this will be another skipped version for me. (I >> skipped E2K and went from 5.5 to E2K3) >> >> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Michael B. Smith < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> Now that it's RTM'ed, I can express my opinion publically. I've got a >> couple of bad things to say about it: >> >> 1] Lots of normal functionality (i.e., things your average admin will need >> to do) isn't in the GUI console. You have to do it in PowerShell. >> >> 2] Retention Policies are a step backwards from Messaging Records >> Management. >> >> 3] The implementation of the Archive Mailbox is half-baked, at best. >> >> 4] All of the Continous Replication solutions are gone - I'm most >> disappointed with the removal of SCR and LCR which did not require Windows >> Enterprise. The only HA solution is DAG (based on failover clustering, which >> requires Windows Enteprise). In USD, this puts about a $6K licensing premium >> on HA. >> >> 5] STILL no two-box HA solution. While you can colocate CA/HT on MB now, >> for that to be a HA solution, you have to have a clustered LB solution >> sitting in front (if the LB isn't clustered, then you don't have a HA >> solution - you just have a resilient backend). With the cost of that, you >> might as well have two more CA/HT boxes sitting in front running Windows >> NLB. >> >> 6] No method of doing an upgrade without either: a] breaking HA of an >> existing installation, or b] purchasing new hardware. >> >> 7] Microsoft is pushing SATA for storage HARD. People using SAN are now at >> a price/feature disadvantage. Not using SAN is going to be a hard-sell for a >> lots of techies, I think, when just one release ago they were pushing >> management for lots of expensive SAN disk. >> >> Not to say that there aren't lots of good/great features - there are. As >> always - you should evaluate the features/functionality for each company, >> one by one. >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: Jason Gurtz [[email protected]] >> Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 10:31 AM >> >> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues >> Subject: RE: Exchange 2007 >> >> > If you're about to deploy an Exchange server and can wait, I am hearing >> > only good things about Exchange 2010. >> >> Finally, useful cross-browser OWA! >> >> It was about time :) >> >> ~JasonG >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Sherry Abercrombie >> >> "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." >> Arthur C. Clarke >> > >
