thing else.
--
Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis Inc.
> -Original Message-
> From: Steve Evans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 10:53 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange and SAN
>
>
&g
Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange and SAN
I can't get past the concept that if the SAN dies (ie FC card or Power
Supplies) then all teh servers you have attached to it are dead in the
water.
Sounds like a quasi mainframe to me.
I still prefer many eggs and many baskets and take the disk hit.
TED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 6:54 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange and SAN
Just to add my 2 bits
We moved our Exchange 5.5 running on win2k from direct attached disk
raid 5 to a IBM ESS 2105 Shark, and we saw about 300 to 400% performance
increase.
-Origin
: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange and SAN
Clarification Windows 2000 and Exchange 5.5
-Original Message-
From: Rosales, Mario
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 11:17 AM
To: 'Exchange Discussions'
Subject: Exchange and SAN
Has anyone ran Exchange in a SAN, and were
> --
> From: Roger Seielstad
> Reply To: Exchange Discussions
> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 7:35 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange and SAN
>
> Actually, there's enough redundancy even in the smaller scale SANS tha
ilto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 6:53 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange and SAN
>
>
> I can't get past the concept that if the SAN dies (ie FC card
> or Power Supplies) then all teh servers you have attached to
> it are
argh
> -Original Message-
> From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 22 September 2003 20:58
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange and SAN
>
>
> Hey, they use the same letters, so they have to be
Cunningham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 3:53 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange and SAN
I can't get past the concept that if the SAN dies (ie FC card or Power
Supplies) then all teh servers you have attached to it are dead in the
water.
Soun
iber to attach to the SAN
so it's much faster for Exchange."
-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 2:50 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange and SAN
As long as you don't buy into the great white l
> Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 4:52 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange and SAN
>
>
> My biggest problem is the amount of jerk-off sellers.
>
> We asked for
> i) a san
> ii) some direct-attatched external storage
>
> The amount o
: Exchange and SAN
I run 2 Exchange 2000 Enterprise servers on an HP EVA2 SAN.
Each server has a 65GB IS right now and a 2GB Public IS.
16,000+ mailboxes total. I have seen no issues since migrating from our
5.5 environment 1 month ago to 2000 and moving away from direct attached
SCSI disk environment
.
-Original Message-
From: Schwartz, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 19/09/2003 20:52
To: Exchange Discussions
Cc:
Subject: RE: Exchange and SAN
I'll kindly ask you to get off of my soapbox.
I run 2 Exchange 2000 Enterprise servers on an HP EVA2 SAN.
Each server has a 65GB IS right now and a 2GB Public IS.
16,000+ mailboxes total. I have seen no issues since migrating from our
5.5 environment 1 month ago to 2000 and moving away from direct attached
SCSI disk environment. The big diffe
2003 2:50 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange and SAN
As long as you don't buy into the great white lie of SAN's, you're golden.
That lie is that there's no performance hit created by taking a single large
array and carving it into a bunch of LUNs - there's a physics
ee. It
will be interesting to see how quickly Exchange and iSCSI come along.
Steve Evans
SDSU Foundation
-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 11:51 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange and SAN
I thought NetApp only
s Inc.
> -Original Message-
> From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 12:34 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange and SAN
>
>
> I have run into this in a couple of situations. One where we
> had a cluster
> c
, September 19, 2003 12:17 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Exchange and SAN
>
>
> Has anyone ran Exchange in a SAN, and were there any issues
> with it? I've
> always had a raid array attached to it which could be the
> same thing but did
> not know if
--
> From: Rosales, Mario
> Reply To: Exchange Discussions
> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 11:16 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Exchange and SAN
>
> Has anyone ran Exchange in a SAN, and were there any issues with it? I've
> al
Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange and SAN
Clarification Windows 2000 and Exchange 5.5
-Original Message-
From: Rosales, Mario
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 11:17 AM
To: 'Exchange Discussions'
Subject: Exchange and SAN
Has anyone ran Exchange in a SAN, and were there any issu
We have an exchange 2k server with 800 users, roughly 71 gb private store
running on an HP MSA1000 and it works great. I would even venture to say
that it runs better than it did on the local drives.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rosal
Subject: RE: Exchange and SAN
Clarification Windows 2000 and Exchange 5.5
-Original Message-
From: Rosales, Mario
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 11:17 AM
To: 'Exchange Discussions'
Subject: Exchange and SAN
Has anyone ran Exchange in a SAN, and were there any issues with
Clarification Windows 2000 and Exchange 5.5
-Original Message-
From: Rosales, Mario
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 11:17 AM
To: 'Exchange Discussions'
Subject: Exchange and SAN
Has anyone ran Exchange in a SAN, and were there any issues with it? I've
always had a raid
Has anyone ran Exchange in a SAN, and were there any issues with it? I've
always had a raid array attached to it which could be the same thing but did
not know if there were any major differences? Any help would be appreciate
it.
Thanks,
Mario
**
23 matches
Mail list logo
