I'm seriously thinkiing of RAID 10 for the server itself, and then just use a USB disk or carve up the SAN for a backup copy or two of the databases...less space from the disks, but faster.
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Evan Brastow <[email protected]>wrote: > Hmmm, I hadn’t even **thought** about RAID 10. Thanks for confusing me > more J > > > > My plan, if I go with RAID 1 on all logical drives, would be to have 2 > drives each for the OS/Program files, Log and Data, so… 6 drives. > > > > If I go with RAID 5 for the data, it would be 7 drives. > > > > Hadn’t given thought to an online spare. My thought was that since the > drives are hot swappable, I’d just do what I do now and keep a spare drive > handy to replace if anything fails…. > > > > > > > > * * > > * * > > > > *From:* Sean Martin [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Thursday, March 11, 2010 2:58 PM > > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* Re: Disk configuration in new server > > > > You're running into the age old question: > > > > Good, Fast, Cheap > > > > Now pick two of those. Just judging by your description of overall > utilization, you're probably not going to see much difference in performance > whether you choose RAID 5 or RAID 10 using the hardware you previously > referenced. If you're comfortable with RAID 5 and you've been happy with the > performance you've experienced on your current hardware, it's only going to > be better on new hardware running Exch 2010. > > > > One question comes to mind. With the 8 drives your server will suppors, 4 > will be allocated for your Information Stores, correct? Do you plan on > configuring an online spare? If so, RAID 10 won't be an option. Considering > you're talking about a single server environment, I'd stick with a 3 disk > RAID 5 (comprised of disk sizes that will meet/exceed capacity requirements > for X years) and definitely leave one drive as an online spare. > > > > - Sean > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Evan Brastow < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Thank you guys, for all of the replies. > > > > I’m a little uncertain, still, because of the following three things: > > > > 1) I have actually used RAID 5 on my current server for the last 7 > years… three disks, one volume… holding the OS, data and logs, with no > issues. (I’m not saying I knew what I was doing when I set it up, okay?) J > > 2) The book, “Exchange Server 2010 Unleashed” says, “RAID 5 is most > commonly used for the data drive because it is a great compromise among > performance, storage capacity and redundancy.” > > 3) Frankly, I could use either RAID 5 or RAID 1 for the data. If I > get two 500GB drives in RAID 1 for the data drives, I can go for 10 years > and not fill that 500GB. But at what performance cost? I need very fast > read/search speeds. > > > > BUT… > > > > 4) ASB doesn’t like RAID 5 for data drives, and I Trust in ASB! Have > for 10 years! But I’ve also had this rather passionate love affair with RAID > 5 for 10 years… it’s never let me down. > > > > > > Brian, I agree I’m going about this backwards, probably, and I’ve not run > the Exchange Storage Calculator. We’re a small company. And I mean small. 18 > employees. 15 Exchange mailboxes, only 7-8 of which have any real use. A > grand total of about 700 valid emails come in a day (the rest are stopped by > our Barracuda.) My primary concern is just speed, speed, speed, not so much > storage J > > > > It feels like my best bet would be RAID 1 for all logical drives, even the > data. I’m just not sure that RAID 1 would be faster overall than RAID 5? > > > > Evan > > > > > > * * > > > > *From:* Carl Houseman [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 10, 2010 4:50 PM > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* RE: Disk configuration in new server > > > > OK, I over-interpreted and under-defined that answer... Here's what MS says > (italics mine): > > > > "RAID (Redundant Array of Independent Disks) is often used to both improve > the performance characteristics of individual disks (by striping data across > several disks) as well as to provide protection from individual disk > failures. With the advancements in Exchange 2010 high availability, *RAID > is no longer a required component for Exchange 2010 storage design*. > However, RAID is still an essential piece to Exchange 2010 storage design > for* stand-alone servers* as well as high availability solutions which > require either additional performance or greater storage reliability. The > table below provides guidance for the common RAID types that can be used > with the Exchange 2010 Mailbox server." > > > > http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee832792.aspx > > > > Further reading suggests a single server could maintain multiple copies of > the Exchange database on a single server's JBODs, but that's got to be more > overhead than just RAID 1'ing it. > > > > Carl > > > > *From:* Jon Harris [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 10, 2010 4:42 PM > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* Re: Disk configuration in new server > > > > I would think at the least you would want RAID 1. > > > > Jon > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Carl Houseman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > JBOD's. E2010 does its own DR thing, RAID not required. But again, that's > just what I've heard/read. > > > > Carl > > > > *From:* Evan Brastow [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 10, 2010 3:55 PM > > > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* RE: Disk configuration in new server > > > > Hi guys, > > > > I’m just revisiting this after getting pulled in a few different directions > over the past week. > > > > Dumb question… if I use RAID 1 on the OS and log volumes, and it’s not > recommended that I use RAID 5 for the data, what **should** I use for the > data? > > > > Thanks J > > > > Evan > > * * > > * * > > * * > > > > *From:* Erik Goldoff [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 03, 2010 7:31 PM > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* RE: Disk configuration in new server > > > > I'd say run mirrors for all volumes except the data (information store) if > your IS size is already large ... > > > > but best decision will be based on your current disk usage and projected > growth. Depending on your backup schedule and traffic volume, your log > files may require large storage too. > > > Erik Goldoff > > *IT Consultant* > > *Systems, Networks, & Security * > > ' Security is an ongoing process, not a one time event ! ' > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Evan Brastow [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 03, 2010 4:17 PM > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* Disk configuration in new server > > Hi guys. > > > > I’m looking at this server: > http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.aspx?EDC=1723415 to be our next > Exchange 2010 Enterprise server (currently running 2003 Ent. on 7 year old > hardware.) > > > > What I’m wondering is, if I wanted to have a separate RAID array for the 1) > OS and Exchange 2) Exchange data 3) Exchange logs… then do I need 3 RAID > controllers? I’ve never set up multiple RAID arrays on a server before. > > > > Or do I even need to separate them out? Storage is not a big concern, but > speed is. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Evan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
