Evan, Like Brian pointed out. Unless all 15 of your users are repsonsible for 10-15 iops each, than you're not even going to stress a single disk configuration, let alone a RAID 5 or 10 config. I can appreciate being thorough and making sure you get the right design for your environment, but I think you just might be over-thinking it. Trust that whichever design has been discussed will provide improved performance over your existing environment.
If you're still truly concerned, you need to monitor your existing server, profile your user load, and use that to calculate what kind of I/O your stores are experiencing on a daily basis (and during peak times). I'm not sure if there's a storage calculator available for Exch 2010 but the one for Exch 2007 should give you good info. http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2007/01/15/432207.aspx On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Brian Desmond <[email protected]>wrote: > *With something that small you’re unlikely to max out I/O on whatever you > choose…* > > * * > > *Thanks,* > > *Brian Desmond* > > *[email protected]* > > * * > > *c – 312.731.3132* > > * * > > *From:* Evan Brastow [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Thursday, March 11, 2010 1:45 PM > > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* RE: Disk configuration in new server > > > > 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/> ~
