RE: New Exchange Server
I know, but that's not a valid reason for dropping raid.. I would say identify where the problem was (if it was a bad card, bad drivers or just an unrelated crash), and fix it. -Original Message- From: Hurst, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 03 October 2002 5:21 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Andrea, I do believe though he said that... 'I had an Exchange server. Page file was on a separate RAID1 volume. RAID1 broke. Server crashed with a blue screen. ' IE he had it on Raid 1 and it still failed (don't know why probably because of a problem with the Raid1 hardware/BIOS or it was the ID0 drive in the mirror? Cheers Paul Standards are like toothbrushes, everyone wants one but not yours -Original Message- From: Andrea Coppini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 03 October 2002 15:50 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Picture this: Your single (let's say IDE) pagefile drive fails, so your system crashes. You run down to your store or computer shop to buy a new drive (system still down) You install the disk in another machine (since Exchange might not start up without page drive) (system still down) You partition/format the drive (system still down) You install the new IDE disk in your exchange server (system still down) You start up Exchange. If you can afford all that downtime, go ahead and use a single drive. But now let's look at RAID1 swap: One of your swap disks fail.. Raid1 is broken so machine keeps running on one disk You take the bad disk Offline and pull it out You stroll and whistle your way down to your store or computer shop to get a new disk, maybe even have a couple of doughnuts on the way... You insert the new disk in your exchange server. run the RAID tools, rebuild the RAID. Pat yourself on the back for 0% downtime. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 03 October 2002 4:23 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server If it happened once it will probably happen again. I see no big benefit of putting page file on RAID. If I had a limited number of drive bays, I would rather have a separate RAID1 for transaction logs and a separate RAID5 for informations store database files; and if no more drive array bays are available for the page file volume - I would stick an IDE or SCSI drive in the CD-ROM bay or some other available space and connect it to the onboard controller and achieve better performance instead of perceived reliability. -Original Message- From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 9:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server So because you once had a problem with RAID that caused it to stop working must mean that it's always unreliable for everyone else every time? Robert Moir IT Systems Engineer Luton Sixth Form College SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue 0 0 rows returned -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 03 October 2002 13:53 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Do you need me to explain it all in small details? I had an Exchange server. Page file was on a separate RAID1 volume. RAID1 broke. Server crashed with a blue screen. Having the page file on RAID1 did not necessarily make it more reliable. Might as well have had the page file on a single drive. Why did I write this? Because I was answering someone else's remark Placing the pagefile on a separate drive sacrifices reliability for performance. Ok now? Can I go? -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:52 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server What does that have to do with Exchange? Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:04 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Well once I had a broken RAID1 on the page file volume. RAID did not save me. The server blue-screened. The RAID1 was physical. How about that for reliability? -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 7:46 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Why? Placing the pagefile on a separate drive sacrifices reliability for performance. This is not normally a choice I would make on a production server. Dennis Depp -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:58 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server I would still try to find a way to put page file
RE: New Exchange Server
If you were referring to me, I'll show you my willy... Regards _MR._ Andrea Coppini -Original Message- From: Jeremy I. Shannon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 03 October 2002 7:39 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Maybe you should look into getting a better RAID controller. Her theory is right. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 12:04 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Andrea, Please let me disagree. All I have to do is boot without the crashed page drive. Windows will create a temp page file on the C: drive and start (just confirmed this with my hardware guys). Then when time allows, the replacement drive can be added and the page file moved to it, with all the necessary reboots. I also disagree about the 0% downtime according to your scenario #2. Based on my experience, as soon as RAID failed on the page file volume, the server did a blue screen of death. So much for 0% downtime. *In theory* the server *should* have kept running. But it did not. So screw it. If it is going to crash anyway I am not going to spend extra money on it. -Original Message- From: Andrea Coppini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 10:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Picture this: Your single (let's say IDE) pagefile drive fails, so your system crashes. You run down to your store or computer shop to buy a new drive (system still down) You install the disk in another machine (since Exchange might not start up without page drive) (system still down) You partition/format the drive (system still down) You install the new IDE disk in your exchange server (system still down) You start up Exchange. If you can afford all that downtime, go ahead and use a single drive. But now let's look at RAID1 swap: One of your swap disks fail.. Raid1 is broken so machine keeps running on one disk You take the bad disk Offline and pull it out You stroll and whistle your way down to your store or computer shop to get a new disk, maybe even have a couple of doughnuts on the way... You insert the new disk in your exchange server. run the RAID tools, rebuild the RAID. Pat yourself on the back for 0% downtime. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 03 October 2002 4:23 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server If it happened once it will probably happen again. I see no big benefit of putting page file on RAID. If I had a limited number of drive bays, I would rather have a separate RAID1 for transaction logs and a separate RAID5 for informations store database files; and if no more drive array bays are available for the page file volume - I would stick an IDE or SCSI drive in the CD-ROM bay or some other available space and connect it to the onboard controller and achieve better performance instead of perceived reliability. -Original Message- From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 9:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server So because you once had a problem with RAID that caused it to stop working must mean that it's always unreliable for everyone else every time? Robert Moir IT Systems Engineer Luton Sixth Form College SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue 0 0 rows returned -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 03 October 2002 13:53 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Do you need me to explain it all in small details? I had an Exchange server. Page file was on a separate RAID1 volume. RAID1 broke. Server crashed with a blue screen. Having the page file on RAID1 did not necessarily make it more reliable. Might as well have had the page file on a single drive. Why did I write this? Because I was answering someone else's remark Placing the pagefile on a separate drive sacrifices reliability for performance. Ok now? Can I go? -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:52 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server What does that have to do with Exchange? Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:04 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Well once I had a broken RAID1 on the page file volume. RAID did not save me. The server blue-screened. The RAID1 was physical. How about that for reliability? -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 7:46 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange
RE: New Exchange Server
Lol! -Original Message- From: Andrea Coppini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 04 October 2002 11:21 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server If you were referring to me, I'll show you my willy... Regards _MR._ Andrea Coppini -Original Message- From: Jeremy I. Shannon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 03 October 2002 7:39 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Maybe you should look into getting a better RAID controller. Her theory is right. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 12:04 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Andrea, Please let me disagree. All I have to do is boot without the crashed page drive. Windows will create a temp page file on the C: drive and start (just confirmed this with my hardware guys). Then when time allows, the replacement drive can be added and the page file moved to it, with all the necessary reboots. I also disagree about the 0% downtime according to your scenario #2. Based on my experience, as soon as RAID failed on the page file volume, the server did a blue screen of death. So much for 0% downtime. *In theory* the server *should* have kept running. But it did not. So screw it. If it is going to crash anyway I am not going to spend extra money on it. -Original Message- From: Andrea Coppini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 10:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Picture this: Your single (let's say IDE) pagefile drive fails, so your system crashes. You run down to your store or computer shop to buy a new drive (system still down) You install the disk in another machine (since Exchange might not start up without page drive) (system still down) You partition/format the drive (system still down) You install the new IDE disk in your exchange server (system still down) You start up Exchange. If you can afford all that downtime, go ahead and use a single drive. But now let's look at RAID1 swap: One of your swap disks fail.. Raid1 is broken so machine keeps running on one disk You take the bad disk Offline and pull it out You stroll and whistle your way down to your store or computer shop to get a new disk, maybe even have a couple of doughnuts on the way... You insert the new disk in your exchange server. run the RAID tools, rebuild the RAID. Pat yourself on the back for 0% downtime. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 03 October 2002 4:23 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server If it happened once it will probably happen again. I see no big benefit of putting page file on RAID. If I had a limited number of drive bays, I would rather have a separate RAID1 for transaction logs and a separate RAID5 for informations store database files; and if no more drive array bays are available for the page file volume - I would stick an IDE or SCSI drive in the CD-ROM bay or some other available space and connect it to the onboard controller and achieve better performance instead of perceived reliability. -Original Message- From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 9:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server So because you once had a problem with RAID that caused it to stop working must mean that it's always unreliable for everyone else every time? Robert Moir IT Systems Engineer Luton Sixth Form College SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue 0 0 rows returned -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 03 October 2002 13:53 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Do you need me to explain it all in small details? I had an Exchange server. Page file was on a separate RAID1 volume. RAID1 broke. Server crashed with a blue screen. Having the page file on RAID1 did not necessarily make it more reliable. Might as well have had the page file on a single drive. Why did I write this? Because I was answering someone else's remark Placing the pagefile on a separate drive sacrifices reliability for performance. Ok now? Can I go? -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:52 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server What does that have to do with Exchange? Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:04 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Well once I had a broken RAID1 on the page file volume. RAID did not save me. The server blue-screened. The RAID1 was physical. How about that for reliability
RE: New Exchange Server
TMI -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrea Coppini Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 05:21 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server If you were referring to me, I'll show you my willy... Regards _MR._ Andrea Coppini -Original Message- From: Jeremy I. Shannon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 03 October 2002 7:39 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Maybe you should look into getting a better RAID controller. Her theory is right. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 12:04 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Andrea, Please let me disagree. All I have to do is boot without the crashed page drive. Windows will create a temp page file on the C: drive and start (just confirmed this with my hardware guys). Then when time allows, the replacement drive can be added and the page file moved to it, with all the necessary reboots. I also disagree about the 0% downtime according to your scenario #2. Based on my experience, as soon as RAID failed on the page file volume, the server did a blue screen of death. So much for 0% downtime. *In theory* the server *should* have kept running. But it did not. So screw it. If it is going to crash anyway I am not going to spend extra money on it. -Original Message- From: Andrea Coppini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 10:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Picture this: Your single (let's say IDE) pagefile drive fails, so your system crashes. You run down to your store or computer shop to buy a new drive (system still down) You install the disk in another machine (since Exchange might not start up without page drive) (system still down) You partition/format the drive (system still down) You install the new IDE disk in your exchange server (system still down) You start up Exchange. If you can afford all that downtime, go ahead and use a single drive. But now let's look at RAID1 swap: One of your swap disks fail.. Raid1 is broken so machine keeps running on one disk You take the bad disk Offline and pull it out You stroll and whistle your way down to your store or computer shop to get a new disk, maybe even have a couple of doughnuts on the way... You insert the new disk in your exchange server. run the RAID tools, rebuild the RAID. Pat yourself on the back for 0% downtime. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 03 October 2002 4:23 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server If it happened once it will probably happen again. I see no big benefit of putting page file on RAID. If I had a limited number of drive bays, I would rather have a separate RAID1 for transaction logs and a separate RAID5 for informations store database files; and if no more drive array bays are available for the page file volume - I would stick an IDE or SCSI drive in the CD-ROM bay or some other available space and connect it to the onboard controller and achieve better performance instead of perceived reliability. -Original Message- From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 9:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server So because you once had a problem with RAID that caused it to stop working must mean that it's always unreliable for everyone else every time? Robert Moir IT Systems Engineer Luton Sixth Form College SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue 0 0 rows returned -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 03 October 2002 13:53 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Do you need me to explain it all in small details? I had an Exchange server. Page file was on a separate RAID1 volume. RAID1 broke. Server crashed with a blue screen. Having the page file on RAID1 did not necessarily make it more reliable. Might as well have had the page file on a single drive. Why did I write this? Because I was answering someone else's remark Placing the pagefile on a separate drive sacrifices reliability for performance. Ok now? Can I go? -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:52 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server What does that have to do with Exchange? Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:04 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Well once I had a broken RAID1 on the page file volume. RAID did not save me. The server blue-screened. The RAID1 was physical
RE: New Exchange Server
I would not deny that I probably had a crappy RAID controller BUT it was actually an Adaptec, not a crappy IDE/ATA. Anyway that was in the past. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 4:07 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, at 1:39pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe you should look into getting a better RAID controller. Her theory is right. I'll second that. There seem to be a large number of really sh*tty IDE/ATA RAID controllers on the market these days. We had one customer who (against our objections) bought a server from this guy I know. Along with other stupidities, it included a RAID controller from some outfit using the name of StarTech. No management software, just a pre-boot BIOS interface with a four-function menu. Well, last week the server abruptly crashed for no apparent reason. Upon reboot, the controller said reported one of the disks as failed, but refused to tell us which one, or re-mirror with a new drive. Then it trashed part of the filesystem. We spent three days doing recovery -- oh, did I mention they weren't doing backups, either? BTW, that RAID controller is now severely fragmented. I wonder if DEFRAG can fix it? ;-) -- Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: New Exchange Server
Wow. I thought my name was bad :) Everyone thinks it is A-U-drey. -Original Message- From: Andrea Coppini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 5:21 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server If you were referring to me, I'll show you my willy... Regards _MR._ Andrea Coppini -Original Message- From: Jeremy I. Shannon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 03 October 2002 7:39 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Maybe you should look into getting a better RAID controller. Her theory is right. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 12:04 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Andrea, Please let me disagree. All I have to do is boot without the crashed page drive. Windows will create a temp page file on the C: drive and start (just confirmed this with my hardware guys). Then when time allows, the replacement drive can be added and the page file moved to it, with all the necessary reboots. I also disagree about the 0% downtime according to your scenario #2. Based on my experience, as soon as RAID failed on the page file volume, the server did a blue screen of death. So much for 0% downtime. *In theory* the server *should* have kept running. But it did not. So screw it. If it is going to crash anyway I am not going to spend extra money on it. -Original Message- From: Andrea Coppini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 10:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Picture this: Your single (let's say IDE) pagefile drive fails, so your system crashes. You run down to your store or computer shop to buy a new drive (system still down) You install the disk in another machine (since Exchange might not start up without page drive) (system still down) You partition/format the drive (system still down) You install the new IDE disk in your exchange server (system still down) You start up Exchange. If you can afford all that downtime, go ahead and use a single drive. But now let's look at RAID1 swap: One of your swap disks fail.. Raid1 is broken so machine keeps running on one disk You take the bad disk Offline and pull it out You stroll and whistle your way down to your store or computer shop to get a new disk, maybe even have a couple of doughnuts on the way... You insert the new disk in your exchange server. run the RAID tools, rebuild the RAID. Pat yourself on the back for 0% downtime. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 03 October 2002 4:23 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server If it happened once it will probably happen again. I see no big benefit of putting page file on RAID. If I had a limited number of drive bays, I would rather have a separate RAID1 for transaction logs and a separate RAID5 for informations store database files; and if no more drive array bays are available for the page file volume - I would stick an IDE or SCSI drive in the CD-ROM bay or some other available space and connect it to the onboard controller and achieve better performance instead of perceived reliability. -Original Message- From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 9:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server So because you once had a problem with RAID that caused it to stop working must mean that it's always unreliable for everyone else every time? Robert Moir IT Systems Engineer Luton Sixth Form College SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue 0 0 rows returned -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 03 October 2002 13:53 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Do you need me to explain it all in small details? I had an Exchange server. Page file was on a separate RAID1 volume. RAID1 broke. Server crashed with a blue screen. Having the page file on RAID1 did not necessarily make it more reliable. Might as well have had the page file on a single drive. Why did I write this? Because I was answering someone else's remark Placing the pagefile on a separate drive sacrifices reliability for performance. Ok now? Can I go? -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:52 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server What does that have to do with Exchange? Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:04 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Well once I had a broken RAID1 on the page file volume. RAID did not save me. The server
RE: New Exchange Server
Do you need me to explain it all in small details? I had an Exchange server. Page file was on a separate RAID1 volume. RAID1 broke. Server crashed with a blue screen. Having the page file on RAID1 did not necessarily make it more reliable. Might as well have had the page file on a single drive. Why did I write this? Because I was answering someone else's remark Placing the pagefile on a separate drive sacrifices reliability for performance. Ok now? Can I go? -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:52 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server What does that have to do with Exchange? Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:04 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Well once I had a broken RAID1 on the page file volume. RAID did not save me. The server blue-screened. The RAID1 was physical. How about that for reliability? -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 7:46 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Why? Placing the pagefile on a separate drive sacrifices reliability for performance. This is not normally a choice I would make on a production server. Dennis Depp -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:58 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server I would still try to find a way to put page file on a separate drive. Check if you can get a single IDE or SCSI drive and stick it somewhere inside the server. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:33 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server What's vitally important is to keep the logs on a separate physical volume from the databases. For 150 users, I agree that combining the OS and logs onto the same physical volume (I recommend separate partitions, though) shouldn't present significant performance problems. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Martin Blackstone Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server The ideal config is as follows 2 Drives, RAID1, OS 2 Drives, RAID1, Logs 3 or more drives, RAID5 (or 1+0 if you have enough drives), Stores Not everyone has the luxury of so many drives. I have 2 drives in RAID1 for OS and Logs, and 4 in a RAID5 for the Store. -Original Message- From: Vincent Avallone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: New Exchange Server I am in the process of building a new Exchange server and I have been trying to keep up with the post about configuration, but I will ask again. What is the proper hard drive configuration for setting up a new Exchange 2000 box for about 150 users? On which partition should I put the OS, the database etc. Thanks. -- Vincent Avallone iBiquity Digital (410) 872-1535 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED
RE: New Exchange Server
So because you once had a problem with RAID that caused it to stop working must mean that it's always unreliable for everyone else every time? Robert Moir IT Systems Engineer Luton Sixth Form College SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue 0 0 rows returned -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 03 October 2002 13:53 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Do you need me to explain it all in small details? I had an Exchange server. Page file was on a separate RAID1 volume. RAID1 broke. Server crashed with a blue screen. Having the page file on RAID1 did not necessarily make it more reliable. Might as well have had the page file on a single drive. Why did I write this? Because I was answering someone else's remark Placing the pagefile on a separate drive sacrifices reliability for performance. Ok now? Can I go? -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:52 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server What does that have to do with Exchange? Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:04 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Well once I had a broken RAID1 on the page file volume. RAID did not save me. The server blue-screened. The RAID1 was physical. How about that for reliability? -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 7:46 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Why? Placing the pagefile on a separate drive sacrifices reliability for performance. This is not normally a choice I would make on a production server. Dennis Depp -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:58 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server I would still try to find a way to put page file on a separate drive. Check if you can get a single IDE or SCSI drive and stick it somewhere inside the server. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:33 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server What's vitally important is to keep the logs on a separate physical volume from the databases. For 150 users, I agree that combining the OS and logs onto the same physical volume (I recommend separate partitions, though) shouldn't present significant performance problems. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Martin Blackstone Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server The ideal config is as follows 2 Drives, RAID1, OS 2 Drives, RAID1, Logs 3 or more drives, RAID5 (or 1+0 if you have enough drives), Stores Not everyone has the luxury of so many drives. I have 2 drives in RAID1 for OS and Logs, and 4 in a RAID5 for the Store. -Original Message- From: Vincent Avallone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: New Exchange Server I am in the process of building a new Exchange server and I have been trying to keep up with the post about configuration, but I will ask again. What is the proper hard drive configuration for setting up a new Exchange 2000 box for about 150 users? On which partition should I put the OS, the database etc. Thanks. -- Vincent Avallone iBiquity Digital (410) 872-1535 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED
RE: New Exchange Server
If it happened once it will probably happen again. I see no big benefit of putting page file on RAID. If I had a limited number of drive bays, I would rather have a separate RAID1 for transaction logs and a separate RAID5 for informations store database files; and if no more drive array bays are available for the page file volume - I would stick an IDE or SCSI drive in the CD-ROM bay or some other available space and connect it to the onboard controller and achieve better performance instead of perceived reliability. -Original Message- From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 9:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server So because you once had a problem with RAID that caused it to stop working must mean that it's always unreliable for everyone else every time? Robert Moir IT Systems Engineer Luton Sixth Form College SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue 0 0 rows returned -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 03 October 2002 13:53 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Do you need me to explain it all in small details? I had an Exchange server. Page file was on a separate RAID1 volume. RAID1 broke. Server crashed with a blue screen. Having the page file on RAID1 did not necessarily make it more reliable. Might as well have had the page file on a single drive. Why did I write this? Because I was answering someone else's remark Placing the pagefile on a separate drive sacrifices reliability for performance. Ok now? Can I go? -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:52 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server What does that have to do with Exchange? Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:04 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Well once I had a broken RAID1 on the page file volume. RAID did not save me. The server blue-screened. The RAID1 was physical. How about that for reliability? -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 7:46 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Why? Placing the pagefile on a separate drive sacrifices reliability for performance. This is not normally a choice I would make on a production server. Dennis Depp -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:58 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server I would still try to find a way to put page file on a separate drive. Check if you can get a single IDE or SCSI drive and stick it somewhere inside the server. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:33 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server What's vitally important is to keep the logs on a separate physical volume from the databases. For 150 users, I agree that combining the OS and logs onto the same physical volume (I recommend separate partitions, though) shouldn't present significant performance problems. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Martin Blackstone Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server The ideal config is as follows 2 Drives, RAID1, OS 2 Drives, RAID1, Logs 3 or more drives, RAID5 (or 1+0 if you have enough drives), Stores Not everyone has the luxury of so many drives. I have 2 drives in RAID1 for OS and Logs, and 4 in a RAID5 for the Store. -Original Message- From: Vincent Avallone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: New Exchange Server I am in the process of building a new Exchange server and I have been trying to keep up with the post about configuration, but I will ask again. What is the proper hard drive configuration for setting up a new Exchange 2000 box for about 150 users? On which partition should I put the OS, the database etc. Thanks. -- Vincent Avallone iBiquity Digital (410) 872-1535 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL
RE: New Exchange Server
Picture this: Your single (let's say IDE) pagefile drive fails, so your system crashes. You run down to your store or computer shop to buy a new drive (system still down) You install the disk in another machine (since Exchange might not start up without page drive) (system still down) You partition/format the drive (system still down) You install the new IDE disk in your exchange server (system still down) You start up Exchange. If you can afford all that downtime, go ahead and use a single drive. But now let's look at RAID1 swap: One of your swap disks fail.. Raid1 is broken so machine keeps running on one disk You take the bad disk Offline and pull it out You stroll and whistle your way down to your store or computer shop to get a new disk, maybe even have a couple of doughnuts on the way... You insert the new disk in your exchange server. run the RAID tools, rebuild the RAID. Pat yourself on the back for 0% downtime. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 03 October 2002 4:23 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server If it happened once it will probably happen again. I see no big benefit of putting page file on RAID. If I had a limited number of drive bays, I would rather have a separate RAID1 for transaction logs and a separate RAID5 for informations store database files; and if no more drive array bays are available for the page file volume - I would stick an IDE or SCSI drive in the CD-ROM bay or some other available space and connect it to the onboard controller and achieve better performance instead of perceived reliability. -Original Message- From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 9:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server So because you once had a problem with RAID that caused it to stop working must mean that it's always unreliable for everyone else every time? Robert Moir IT Systems Engineer Luton Sixth Form College SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue 0 0 rows returned -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 03 October 2002 13:53 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Do you need me to explain it all in small details? I had an Exchange server. Page file was on a separate RAID1 volume. RAID1 broke. Server crashed with a blue screen. Having the page file on RAID1 did not necessarily make it more reliable. Might as well have had the page file on a single drive. Why did I write this? Because I was answering someone else's remark Placing the pagefile on a separate drive sacrifices reliability for performance. Ok now? Can I go? -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:52 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server What does that have to do with Exchange? Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:04 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Well once I had a broken RAID1 on the page file volume. RAID did not save me. The server blue-screened. The RAID1 was physical. How about that for reliability? -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 7:46 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Why? Placing the pagefile on a separate drive sacrifices reliability for performance. This is not normally a choice I would make on a production server. Dennis Depp -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:58 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server I would still try to find a way to put page file on a separate drive. Check if you can get a single IDE or SCSI drive and stick it somewhere inside the server. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:33 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server What's vitally important is to keep the logs on a separate physical volume from the databases. For 150 users, I agree that combining the OS and logs onto the same physical volume (I recommend separate partitions, though) shouldn't present significant performance problems. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Martin Blackstone Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server
RE: New Exchange Server
Eeeeuh, maybe because they had to 'exchange' a disk. Michel -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 5:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server What does that have to do with Exchange? Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:04 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Well once I had a broken RAID1 on the page file volume. RAID did not save me. The server blue-screened. The RAID1 was physical. How about that for reliability? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: New Exchange Server
Andrea, I do believe though he said that... 'I had an Exchange server. Page file was on a separate RAID1 volume. RAID1 broke. Server crashed with a blue screen. ' IE he had it on Raid 1 and it still failed (don't know why probably because of a problem with the Raid1 hardware/BIOS or it was the ID0 drive in the mirror? Cheers Paul Standards are like toothbrushes, everyone wants one but not yours -Original Message- From: Andrea Coppini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 03 October 2002 15:50 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Picture this: Your single (let's say IDE) pagefile drive fails, so your system crashes. You run down to your store or computer shop to buy a new drive (system still down) You install the disk in another machine (since Exchange might not start up without page drive) (system still down) You partition/format the drive (system still down) You install the new IDE disk in your exchange server (system still down) You start up Exchange. If you can afford all that downtime, go ahead and use a single drive. But now let's look at RAID1 swap: One of your swap disks fail.. Raid1 is broken so machine keeps running on one disk You take the bad disk Offline and pull it out You stroll and whistle your way down to your store or computer shop to get a new disk, maybe even have a couple of doughnuts on the way... You insert the new disk in your exchange server. run the RAID tools, rebuild the RAID. Pat yourself on the back for 0% downtime. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 03 October 2002 4:23 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server If it happened once it will probably happen again. I see no big benefit of putting page file on RAID. If I had a limited number of drive bays, I would rather have a separate RAID1 for transaction logs and a separate RAID5 for informations store database files; and if no more drive array bays are available for the page file volume - I would stick an IDE or SCSI drive in the CD-ROM bay or some other available space and connect it to the onboard controller and achieve better performance instead of perceived reliability. -Original Message- From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 9:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server So because you once had a problem with RAID that caused it to stop working must mean that it's always unreliable for everyone else every time? Robert Moir IT Systems Engineer Luton Sixth Form College SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue 0 0 rows returned -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 03 October 2002 13:53 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Do you need me to explain it all in small details? I had an Exchange server. Page file was on a separate RAID1 volume. RAID1 broke. Server crashed with a blue screen. Having the page file on RAID1 did not necessarily make it more reliable. Might as well have had the page file on a single drive. Why did I write this? Because I was answering someone else's remark Placing the pagefile on a separate drive sacrifices reliability for performance. Ok now? Can I go? -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:52 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server What does that have to do with Exchange? Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:04 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Well once I had a broken RAID1 on the page file volume. RAID did not save me. The server blue-screened. The RAID1 was physical. How about that for reliability? -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 7:46 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Why? Placing the pagefile on a separate drive sacrifices reliability for performance. This is not normally a choice I would make on a production server. Dennis Depp -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:58 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server I would still try to find a way to put page file on a separate drive. Check if you can get a single IDE or SCSI drive and stick it somewhere inside the server. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:33 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server What's vitally important is to keep the logs
RE: New Exchange Server
Andrea, Please let me disagree. All I have to do is boot without the crashed page drive. Windows will create a temp page file on the C: drive and start (just confirmed this with my hardware guys). Then when time allows, the replacement drive can be added and the page file moved to it, with all the necessary reboots. I also disagree about the 0% downtime according to your scenario #2. Based on my experience, as soon as RAID failed on the page file volume, the server did a blue screen of death. So much for 0% downtime. *In theory* the server *should* have kept running. But it did not. So screw it. If it is going to crash anyway I am not going to spend extra money on it. -Original Message- From: Andrea Coppini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 10:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Picture this: Your single (let's say IDE) pagefile drive fails, so your system crashes. You run down to your store or computer shop to buy a new drive (system still down) You install the disk in another machine (since Exchange might not start up without page drive) (system still down) You partition/format the drive (system still down) You install the new IDE disk in your exchange server (system still down) You start up Exchange. If you can afford all that downtime, go ahead and use a single drive. But now let's look at RAID1 swap: One of your swap disks fail.. Raid1 is broken so machine keeps running on one disk You take the bad disk Offline and pull it out You stroll and whistle your way down to your store or computer shop to get a new disk, maybe even have a couple of doughnuts on the way... You insert the new disk in your exchange server. run the RAID tools, rebuild the RAID. Pat yourself on the back for 0% downtime. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 03 October 2002 4:23 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server If it happened once it will probably happen again. I see no big benefit of putting page file on RAID. If I had a limited number of drive bays, I would rather have a separate RAID1 for transaction logs and a separate RAID5 for informations store database files; and if no more drive array bays are available for the page file volume - I would stick an IDE or SCSI drive in the CD-ROM bay or some other available space and connect it to the onboard controller and achieve better performance instead of perceived reliability. -Original Message- From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 9:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server So because you once had a problem with RAID that caused it to stop working must mean that it's always unreliable for everyone else every time? Robert Moir IT Systems Engineer Luton Sixth Form College SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue 0 0 rows returned -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 03 October 2002 13:53 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Do you need me to explain it all in small details? I had an Exchange server. Page file was on a separate RAID1 volume. RAID1 broke. Server crashed with a blue screen. Having the page file on RAID1 did not necessarily make it more reliable. Might as well have had the page file on a single drive. Why did I write this? Because I was answering someone else's remark Placing the pagefile on a separate drive sacrifices reliability for performance. Ok now? Can I go? -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:52 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server What does that have to do with Exchange? Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:04 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Well once I had a broken RAID1 on the page file volume. RAID did not save me. The server blue-screened. The RAID1 was physical. How about that for reliability? -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 7:46 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Why? Placing the pagefile on a separate drive sacrifices reliability for performance. This is not normally a choice I would make on a production server. Dennis Depp -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:58 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server I would still try to find a way to put page file on a separate drive. Check if you can get a single IDE
RE: New Exchange Server
-Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 03 October 2002 15:23 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server If it happened once it will probably happen again. I see no big benefit of putting page file on RAID. If I had a limited number of drive bays, I would rather have a separate RAID1 for transaction logs and a separate RAID5 for informations store database files; and if no more drive array bays are available for the page file volume - I would stick an IDE or SCSI drive in the CD-ROM bay or some other available space and connect it to the onboard controller and achieve better performance instead of perceived reliability. So when your single pagefile drive fails and you decide that because that isn't reliable enough for you, what next, try to put the pagefile on a ramdisk? Now I remember why I like to build all my own servers. Robert Moir IT Systems Engineer Luton Sixth Form College SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue 0 0 rows returned _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: New Exchange Server
Maybe you should look into getting a better RAID controller. Her theory is right. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 12:04 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Andrea, Please let me disagree. All I have to do is boot without the crashed page drive. Windows will create a temp page file on the C: drive and start (just confirmed this with my hardware guys). Then when time allows, the replacement drive can be added and the page file moved to it, with all the necessary reboots. I also disagree about the 0% downtime according to your scenario #2. Based on my experience, as soon as RAID failed on the page file volume, the server did a blue screen of death. So much for 0% downtime. *In theory* the server *should* have kept running. But it did not. So screw it. If it is going to crash anyway I am not going to spend extra money on it. -Original Message- From: Andrea Coppini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 10:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Picture this: Your single (let's say IDE) pagefile drive fails, so your system crashes. You run down to your store or computer shop to buy a new drive (system still down) You install the disk in another machine (since Exchange might not start up without page drive) (system still down) You partition/format the drive (system still down) You install the new IDE disk in your exchange server (system still down) You start up Exchange. If you can afford all that downtime, go ahead and use a single drive. But now let's look at RAID1 swap: One of your swap disks fail.. Raid1 is broken so machine keeps running on one disk You take the bad disk Offline and pull it out You stroll and whistle your way down to your store or computer shop to get a new disk, maybe even have a couple of doughnuts on the way... You insert the new disk in your exchange server. run the RAID tools, rebuild the RAID. Pat yourself on the back for 0% downtime. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 03 October 2002 4:23 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server If it happened once it will probably happen again. I see no big benefit of putting page file on RAID. If I had a limited number of drive bays, I would rather have a separate RAID1 for transaction logs and a separate RAID5 for informations store database files; and if no more drive array bays are available for the page file volume - I would stick an IDE or SCSI drive in the CD-ROM bay or some other available space and connect it to the onboard controller and achieve better performance instead of perceived reliability. -Original Message- From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 9:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server So because you once had a problem with RAID that caused it to stop working must mean that it's always unreliable for everyone else every time? Robert Moir IT Systems Engineer Luton Sixth Form College SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue 0 0 rows returned -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 03 October 2002 13:53 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Do you need me to explain it all in small details? I had an Exchange server. Page file was on a separate RAID1 volume. RAID1 broke. Server crashed with a blue screen. Having the page file on RAID1 did not necessarily make it more reliable. Might as well have had the page file on a single drive. Why did I write this? Because I was answering someone else's remark Placing the pagefile on a separate drive sacrifices reliability for performance. Ok now? Can I go? -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:52 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server What does that have to do with Exchange? Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:04 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Well once I had a broken RAID1 on the page file volume. RAID did not save me. The server blue-screened. The RAID1 was physical. How about that for reliability? -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 7:46 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Why? Placing the pagefile on a separate drive sacrifices reliability for performance. This is not normally a choice I would make on a production server. Dennis Depp -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto
RE: New Exchange Server
If it fails, it fails. I replace it and go on with my life. No big deal. Please read from the beginning of the thread. I only suggested this solution for those situations when there is a limited number of drive bays. -Original Message- From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 12:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 03 October 2002 15:23 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server If it happened once it will probably happen again. I see no big benefit of putting page file on RAID. If I had a limited number of drive bays, I would rather have a separate RAID1 for transaction logs and a separate RAID5 for informations store database files; and if no more drive array bays are available for the page file volume - I would stick an IDE or SCSI drive in the CD-ROM bay or some other available space and connect it to the onboard controller and achieve better performance instead of perceived reliability. So when your single pagefile drive fails and you decide that because that isn't reliable enough for you, what next, try to put the pagefile on a ramdisk? Now I remember why I like to build all my own servers. Robert Moir IT Systems Engineer Luton Sixth Form College SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue 0 0 rows returned _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: New Exchange Server
On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, at 1:39pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe you should look into getting a better RAID controller. Her theory is right. I'll second that. There seem to be a large number of really sh*tty IDE/ATA RAID controllers on the market these days. We had one customer who (against our objections) bought a server from this guy I know. Along with other stupidities, it included a RAID controller from some outfit using the name of StarTech. No management software, just a pre-boot BIOS interface with a four-function menu. Well, last week the server abruptly crashed for no apparent reason. Upon reboot, the controller said reported one of the disks as failed, but refused to tell us which one, or re-mirror with a new drive. Then it trashed part of the filesystem. We spent three days doing recovery -- oh, did I mention they weren't doing backups, either? BTW, that RAID controller is now severely fragmented. I wonder if DEFRAG can fix it? ;-) -- Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: New Exchange Server
What does that have to do with Exchange? Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:04 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Well once I had a broken RAID1 on the page file volume. RAID did not save me. The server blue-screened. The RAID1 was physical. How about that for reliability? -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 7:46 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Why? Placing the pagefile on a separate drive sacrifices reliability for performance. This is not normally a choice I would make on a production server. Dennis Depp -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:58 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server I would still try to find a way to put page file on a separate drive. Check if you can get a single IDE or SCSI drive and stick it somewhere inside the server. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:33 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server What's vitally important is to keep the logs on a separate physical volume from the databases. For 150 users, I agree that combining the OS and logs onto the same physical volume (I recommend separate partitions, though) shouldn't present significant performance problems. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Martin Blackstone Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server The ideal config is as follows 2 Drives, RAID1, OS 2 Drives, RAID1, Logs 3 or more drives, RAID5 (or 1+0 if you have enough drives), Stores Not everyone has the luxury of so many drives. I have 2 drives in RAID1 for OS and Logs, and 4 in a RAID5 for the Store. -Original Message- From: Vincent Avallone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: New Exchange Server I am in the process of building a new Exchange server and I have been trying to keep up with the post about configuration, but I will ask again. What is the proper hard drive configuration for setting up a new Exchange 2000 box for about 150 users? On which partition should I put the OS, the database etc. Thanks. -- Vincent Avallone iBiquity Digital (410) 872-1535 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: New Exchange Server
Why? Placing the pagefile on a separate drive sacrifices reliability for performance. This is not normally a choice I would make on a production server. Dennis Depp -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:58 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server I would still try to find a way to put page file on a separate drive. Check if you can get a single IDE or SCSI drive and stick it somewhere inside the server. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:33 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server What's vitally important is to keep the logs on a separate physical volume from the databases. For 150 users, I agree that combining the OS and logs onto the same physical volume (I recommend separate partitions, though) shouldn't present significant performance problems. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Martin Blackstone Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server The ideal config is as follows 2 Drives, RAID1, OS 2 Drives, RAID1, Logs 3 or more drives, RAID5 (or 1+0 if you have enough drives), Stores Not everyone has the luxury of so many drives. I have 2 drives in RAID1 for OS and Logs, and 4 in a RAID5 for the Store. -Original Message- From: Vincent Avallone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: New Exchange Server I am in the process of building a new Exchange server and I have been trying to keep up with the post about configuration, but I will ask again. What is the proper hard drive configuration for setting up a new Exchange 2000 box for about 150 users? On which partition should I put the OS, the database etc. Thanks. -- Vincent Avallone iBiquity Digital (410) 872-1535 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: New Exchange Server
Well once I had a broken RAID1 on the page file volume. RAID did not save me. The server blue-screened. The RAID1 was physical. How about that for reliability? -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 7:46 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Why? Placing the pagefile on a separate drive sacrifices reliability for performance. This is not normally a choice I would make on a production server. Dennis Depp -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:58 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server I would still try to find a way to put page file on a separate drive. Check if you can get a single IDE or SCSI drive and stick it somewhere inside the server. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:33 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server What's vitally important is to keep the logs on a separate physical volume from the databases. For 150 users, I agree that combining the OS and logs onto the same physical volume (I recommend separate partitions, though) shouldn't present significant performance problems. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Martin Blackstone Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server The ideal config is as follows 2 Drives, RAID1, OS 2 Drives, RAID1, Logs 3 or more drives, RAID5 (or 1+0 if you have enough drives), Stores Not everyone has the luxury of so many drives. I have 2 drives in RAID1 for OS and Logs, and 4 in a RAID5 for the Store. -Original Message- From: Vincent Avallone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: New Exchange Server I am in the process of building a new Exchange server and I have been trying to keep up with the post about configuration, but I will ask again. What is the proper hard drive configuration for setting up a new Exchange 2000 box for about 150 users? On which partition should I put the OS, the database etc. Thanks. -- Vincent Avallone iBiquity Digital (410) 872-1535 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: New Exchange Server
The ideal config is as follows 2 Drives, RAID1, OS 2 Drives, RAID1, Logs 3 or more drives, RAID5 (or 1+0 if you have enough drives), Stores Not everyone has the luxury of so many drives. I have 2 drives in RAID1 for OS and Logs, and 4 in a RAID5 for the Store. -Original Message- From: Vincent Avallone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: New Exchange Server I am in the process of building a new Exchange server and I have been trying to keep up with the post about configuration, but I will ask again. What is the proper hard drive configuration for setting up a new Exchange 2000 box for about 150 users? On which partition should I put the OS, the database etc. Thanks. -- Vincent Avallone iBiquity Digital (410) 872-1535 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: New Exchange Server
What's vitally important is to keep the logs on a separate physical volume from the databases. For 150 users, I agree that combining the OS and logs onto the same physical volume (I recommend separate partitions, though) shouldn't present significant performance problems. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Martin Blackstone Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server The ideal config is as follows 2 Drives, RAID1, OS 2 Drives, RAID1, Logs 3 or more drives, RAID5 (or 1+0 if you have enough drives), Stores Not everyone has the luxury of so many drives. I have 2 drives in RAID1 for OS and Logs, and 4 in a RAID5 for the Store. -Original Message- From: Vincent Avallone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: New Exchange Server I am in the process of building a new Exchange server and I have been trying to keep up with the post about configuration, but I will ask again. What is the proper hard drive configuration for setting up a new Exchange 2000 box for about 150 users? On which partition should I put the OS, the database etc. Thanks. -- Vincent Avallone iBiquity Digital (410) 872-1535 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: New Exchange Server
I would still try to find a way to put page file on a separate drive. Check if you can get a single IDE or SCSI drive and stick it somewhere inside the server. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:33 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server What's vitally important is to keep the logs on a separate physical volume from the databases. For 150 users, I agree that combining the OS and logs onto the same physical volume (I recommend separate partitions, though) shouldn't present significant performance problems. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Martin Blackstone Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server The ideal config is as follows 2 Drives, RAID1, OS 2 Drives, RAID1, Logs 3 or more drives, RAID5 (or 1+0 if you have enough drives), Stores Not everyone has the luxury of so many drives. I have 2 drives in RAID1 for OS and Logs, and 4 in a RAID5 for the Store. -Original Message- From: Vincent Avallone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: New Exchange Server I am in the process of building a new Exchange server and I have been trying to keep up with the post about configuration, but I will ask again. What is the proper hard drive configuration for setting up a new Exchange 2000 box for about 150 users? On which partition should I put the OS, the database etc. Thanks. -- Vincent Avallone iBiquity Digital (410) 872-1535 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: New Exchange Server
I would leave it on a mirrored OS drive before I'd put it on a standalone separate drive. Edgar J. Crowley Jr. Technical Consultant Windows Messaging Platforms Practice hp Services *510-612-3365 *[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 9:58 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server I would still try to find a way to put page file on a separate drive. Check if you can get a single IDE or SCSI drive and stick it somewhere inside the server. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:33 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server What's vitally important is to keep the logs on a separate physical volume from the databases. For 150 users, I agree that combining the OS and logs onto the same physical volume (I recommend separate partitions, though) shouldn't present significant performance problems. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Martin Blackstone Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server The ideal config is as follows 2 Drives, RAID1, OS 2 Drives, RAID1, Logs 3 or more drives, RAID5 (or 1+0 if you have enough drives), Stores Not everyone has the luxury of so many drives. I have 2 drives in RAID1 for OS and Logs, and 4 in a RAID5 for the Store. -Original Message- From: Vincent Avallone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: New Exchange Server I am in the process of building a new Exchange server and I have been trying to keep up with the post about configuration, but I will ask again. What is the proper hard drive configuration for setting up a new Exchange 2000 box for about 150 users? On which partition should I put the OS, the database etc. Thanks. -- Vincent Avallone iBiquity Digital (410) 872-1535 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: New Exchange Server x Default MTA...
Hi Laercio Try weighting the costs of the two IMS so that the secondary one is never used unless the first one is unavailable. -Original Message- From: Laercio_SantosJr@Intervale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 22 August 2001 03:02 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: New Exchange Server x Default MTA... Hi All, We have just installed a new Exchange Server (5.5 sp4) to run with the existing Exchange (5.5 sp3). After the installation of IMS on the new server all new messages started using the new server to relay with the SMTP server... When we turn off the New Server IMS the messages stop being sent, remaining in the MTA Queue. However we need to keep sending messages through the old server when the new is stopped... QUESTION: 1- How the Exchange Site make the load balancing between the IMS Servers on outgoing messages ??? 2- Why the older server stopped sending mails to the SMTP relay Server (it was not expected) ?? Thanks in advance ! Laercio Santos Jr _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] This e-mail may contain confidential information and may be legally privileged and is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that you may not use, distribute or copy this document in any manner whatsoever. Kindly also notify the sender immediately by telephone, and delete the e-mail. When addressed to Internet Solutions' clients any opinion or advice contained in this e-mail is subject to the terms and conditions expressed in any applicable terms of business or client engagement letter. Internet Solutions does not accept liability for any damage, loss or expense arising from this e-mail and/or from the accessing of any files attached to this e-mail. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: New Exchange Server 2000 install and prob with inbox rule
Is the rule on a Public Folder or mailbox? If on a mailbox is the template stored locally on a C drive? If stored locally that is likely your problem since I have seen many instances where templates stored locally will cause a rule to not fire. My resolution was to create a PF and put the template on the server. This worked like a champ. Nate Couch EDS Messaging -- From: Jason Gilbert Reply To: Exchange Discussions Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 12:09 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: New Exchange Server 2000 install and prob with inbox rule We just migrated our 5.5 mailboxes over to our new 2000 server and the only problem I seem to be having is with our inbox rules. Our client stations are all running Outlook XP and the one particular rule that doesn't seem to fire at all, involves inbound email with attachments. So, the rule goes like this, if any new message arrives with an attachment the server should reply using a specific message. Yet the rule does not seem to fire at all, and yet other rules are. Any ideas??? Thanks Jason Gilbert CTO CyberCoders (949) 421-0213 [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
