VMDK. We have two mailbox servers handling about 4000 mailboxes each. Each Exchange server uses multiple storage groups with multiple databases spread across three drive letters - one drive for log files, the other two for stores.
These three drive letters correspond directly to three VMDK files that live in one VMFS which lives on one SAN LUN (but that LUN is spread across 15 spindles). I have noticed that Exchange 2007 hits the disks much less than Exchange 2003. We also force our users (via group policy) to run Outlook in cached mode which also cuts way back on the disk hits. Ken Cornetet 812.482.8499 To err is human - to moo, bovine. -----Original Message----- From: Jon D [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 9:31 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Exchange Database -- VMDK or RAW? For those who have your Exchange boxes inside of VMWare, did you put your databases inside VMDK files, or did you go RAW? VMDK seems like it would be easier to manage, but I'm wondering about size issues, performance, etc. Thanks, Jon ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to [email protected] with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to [email protected] with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
