The rules for storage apply no matter how that storage is served. Is performance most important to you? Capacity? Redundancy? Cost?
Does the hardware in question offset the liabilities of each RAID type? (Or, at least, the desired RAID type?) Do your storage needs warrant a single RAID type? -ASB: http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 8:29 AM, John Aldrich <[email protected]>wrote: > Well, I was thinking about our SAN project and was seriously considering > RAID6/RAID DP for it. I’m looking at about 5 Terabytes of disk space (+/- > usable disk space depending on individual disk size, etc.) I’ll take a look > at your info there and see if any of your thoughts pertain to a SAN. J > > > > [image: John-Aldrich][image: Tile-Tools] > > > > *From:* Andrew S. Baker [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Thursday, March 11, 2010 5:42 PM > > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* Re: Disk configuration in new server > > > > Like other disk configurations, it depends on what you're using RAID6 for, > and the hardware (primarily the controller) that is supporting it. > > > > Your storage controller can make or break a RAID configuration by how it > manages reads or writes to the disk. > > > > In an environment where redundancy and storage capacity are of greater > concern than performance, then *RAID5 *and *RAID6 *will be > more desirable -- all the more if the hardware is top notch. > > > > While I haven't updated it in *a while* (I'll consider updating it in a > few months), the following server config provides different kinds of options > for storage. > > > > http://kb.ultratech-llc.com/?File=ServerSpecs.TXT > > > > You can use this as a basis for whatever configuration you want in your > environment, depending on your own preferences. > > > > > -ASB: http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 4:54 PM, John Aldrich < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Andrew, what’s your opinion on RAID6 / RAID DP? > > > > [image: John-Aldrich][image: Tile-Tools] > > > > *From:* Andrew S. Baker [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Thursday, March 11, 2010 4:40 PM > > > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* Re: Disk configuration in new server > > > > Hey, Evan > > > I'm not saying that RAID5 is evil (except when partitioned for the boot > drive), but RAID1 performs better, especially in a disk failure situation, > and drives are large enough and sufficiently inexpensive that except for lab > and testing scenarios, or really small workloads, I avoid it altogether. > > It works, and given the state of recent hardware, you won't notice it in > many instances unless you compare directly with a separate machine. > > > -ASB: http://xeesm.com/AndrewBaker > Sent from my Verizon Smartphone > ------------------------------ > > *From: *"Evan Brastow" <[email protected]> > > *Date: *Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:45:27 -0500 > > *To: *NT System Admin Issues<[email protected]> > > *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/> ~
<<image001.jpg>>
<<image002.jpg>>
