FWIW, since we're talking about the different flavors of RAID, here's a great visual explanation along with the pros and cons of each type:
http://www.raid.com/04_01_00.html The one thing it lacks is an I/O calculator, but if get the specs on the disks you're using, then you can calculate it out depending on the number of spindles you're using. Jonathan L. Raper, A+, MCSA, MCSE Technology Coordinator Eagle Physicians & Associates, PA [email protected]<BLOCKED::mailto:%[email protected]> www.eaglemds.com<BLOCKED::http://www.eaglemds.com/> ________________________________ From: Evan Brastow [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 3:05 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Disk configuration in new server Hmmm, I hadn't even *thought* about RAID 10. Thanks for confusing me more :) 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]<mailto:[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?) :) 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 :) 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]<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]<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]<mailto:[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]<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 :) Evan From: Erik Goldoff [mailto:[email protected]<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]<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 ________________________________ Any medical information contained in this electronic message is CONFIDENTIAL and privileged. It is unlawful for unauthorized persons to view, copy, disclose, or disseminate CONFIDENTIAL information. This electronic message may contain information that is confidential and/or legally privileged. It is intended only for the use of the individual(s) and/or entity named as recipients in the message. If you are not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender immediately and delete this material from your computer. Do not deliver, distribute or copy this message, and do not disclose its contents or take any action in reliance on the information that it contains. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
