1 raid array versus two arrays - Storage

This is a discussion on 1 raid array versus two arrays - Storage ; We are getting a CX300 SAN. We are debating the best setup. The SAN will be used for file/print and Exchange. We have ten disks. One disk is a spare. Two disks will be mirrored for the Exchange logs. Here ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: 1 raid array versus two arrays

  1. 1 raid array versus two arrays

    We are getting a CX300 SAN. We are debating the best setup. The SAN will be
    used for file/print and Exchange. We have ten disks. One disk is a spare.
    Two disks will be mirrored for the Exchange logs. Here is the debate.
    Should we use the other 7 disks as one RAID array and two different LUNs or
    two RAID arrays? If we do two RAID arrays Exchange would get four disks and
    file/print would get three. The thought process is that you’ll get better
    I/O performance using 7 disks. I more concerned about performance then
    wasted storage space. Exchange and file/print are on separate servers.

  2. Re: 1 raid array versus two arrays

    Preferably Exchange should get two separate RAID groups, one for transaction
    logs, and the other for the Exchange Information Store. I would recommend
    putting these two RAID groups on disks that are not 0-4 as these drives are
    the OS and cache vault for the CX300 and should be low I/O disks. You can
    then create a RAID group for the File/print server. If you can afford it, I
    would purchase a few more disks and fully populate the CX300.


    Eric Bursley
    eric at bursley dot net

    "jbwerner" wrote in message
    news:E6D6CAC9-C89F-4CBD-AB94-7A1ABD30EA6E@microsoft.com...
    > We are getting a CX300 SAN. We are debating the best setup. The SAN will
    > be
    > used for file/print and Exchange. We have ten disks. One disk is a
    > spare.
    > Two disks will be mirrored for the Exchange logs. Here is the debate.
    > Should we use the other 7 disks as one RAID array and two different LUNs
    > or
    > two RAID arrays? If we do two RAID arrays Exchange would get four disks
    > and
    > file/print would get three. The thought process is that you'll get better
    > I/O performance using 7 disks. I more concerned about performance then
    > wasted storage space. Exchange and file/print are on separate servers.




  3. Re: 1 raid array versus two arrays

    Exchange best practice is not to share spindles with any other application.
    That would argue for Plan B. Of course, it's hard to guess the actual usage
    pattern without knowing the Exchange (and to a lesser extent F&P) workload.
    You can use loadsim to simulate this if you have time to experiment.

    "jbwerner" wrote in message
    news:E6D6CAC9-C89F-4CBD-AB94-7A1ABD30EA6E@microsoft.com...
    > We are getting a CX300 SAN. We are debating the best setup. The SAN will
    > be
    > used for file/print and Exchange. We have ten disks. One disk is a
    > spare.
    > Two disks will be mirrored for the Exchange logs. Here is the debate.
    > Should we use the other 7 disks as one RAID array and two different LUNs
    > or
    > two RAID arrays? If we do two RAID arrays Exchange would get four disks
    > and
    > file/print would get three. The thought process is that you'll get better
    > I/O performance using 7 disks. I more concerned about performance then
    > wasted storage space. Exchange and file/print are on separate servers.




  4. Re: 1 raid array versus two arrays

    How many mailboxes will you be hosting in your Exchange enivronment?

    If you have less than 1000 you could mix the logs and databases within the
    same RAID5 group and not see a performance problem. It would be worth the
    time to run a few loadsim tests against the various configurations and measure
    client latency.



    Hello Eric Bursley" ebursley at swbell dot net,

    > Preferably Exchange should get two separate RAID groups, one for
    > transaction logs, and the other for the Exchange Information Store. I
    > would recommend putting these two RAID groups on disks that are not
    > 0-4 as these drives are the OS and cache vault for the CX300 and
    > should be low I/O disks. You can then create a RAID group for the
    > File/print server. If you can afford it, I would purchase a few more
    > disks and fully populate the CX300.
    >
    > Eric Bursley
    > eric at bursley dot net
    > "jbwerner" wrote in message
    > news:E6D6CAC9-C89F-4CBD-AB94-7A1ABD30EA6E@microsoft.com...
    >
    >> We are getting a CX300 SAN. We are debating the best setup. The SAN
    >> will
    >> be
    >> used for file/print and Exchange. We have ten disks. One disk is a
    >> spare.
    >> Two disks will be mirrored for the Exchange logs. Here is the
    >> debate.
    >> Should we use the other 7 disks as one RAID array and two different
    >> LUNs
    >> or
    >> two RAID arrays? If we do two RAID arrays Exchange would get four
    >> disks
    >> and
    >> file/print would get three. The thought process is that you'll get
    >> better
    >> I/O performance using 7 disks. I more concerned about performance
    >> then
    >> wasted storage space. Exchange and file/print are on separate
    >> servers.




+ Reply to Thread