Exchange 2000/2003 & Hardware RAID configurations
30 September 2003, 12:41 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Hi,
I'm spec'ing a new server to replace our aging Exchange 5.5 one. Currently it's running on an HP server with NT4 and a RAID 5 array.
Looking to move to a new Dell rack mount with Windows 2000/2003 and (initially) Exchange 2000, but have plans to migrate to 2003 in about 6-8 months time.
What I'm looking for is some advice on whether to run just another large RAID 5 array or have a small RAID 1 for transaction logs and another RAID 5 for the Information Store.
Only around 8-10GB of data and 150 users, so it's nothing spectacular. Is it worth considering seperate RAID configs?
Stefan
I'm spec'ing a new server to replace our aging Exchange 5.5 one. Currently it's running on an HP server with NT4 and a RAID 5 array.
Looking to move to a new Dell rack mount with Windows 2000/2003 and (initially) Exchange 2000, but have plans to migrate to 2003 in about 6-8 months time.
What I'm looking for is some advice on whether to run just another large RAID 5 array or have a small RAID 1 for transaction logs and another RAID 5 for the Information Store.
Only around 8-10GB of data and 150 users, so it's nothing spectacular. Is it worth considering seperate RAID configs?
Stefan
30 September 2003, 12:57 PM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stefan,
Check the matrix first to show which version of Exchange runs on 2000 and 2003.
Hardware I'd opt for Raid 1 for the system disks (Windows etc) and then raid 5 array for the rest (info store).
Only use hardware raid not software and do some research on raid controllers, I personal use Compaq (Now HP).
Hope this helps.
Ian
Check the matrix first to show which version of Exchange runs on 2000 and 2003.
Hardware I'd opt for Raid 1 for the system disks (Windows etc) and then raid 5 array for the rest (info store).
Only use hardware raid not software and do some research on raid controllers, I personal use Compaq (Now HP).
Hope this helps.
Ian
30 September 2003, 01:08 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stick with just raid 5 for the lot. Cant see benefit of having raid 1 for trans logs.
As above post, my experince is from compaq raid controllers. Decent good spec will fly.
As above post, my experince is from compaq raid controllers. Decent good spec will fly.
30 September 2003, 01:14 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
I would never consider software RAID.
Has to be Dell since they're our preferred supplier.
The OS will either be 2000 with Exchange 2000 or 2003 with Exchange 2003, but that won't be until later next year.
Spec will be high, but just want to know if the RAID config will make a huge amount of difference on such as small site.
Looks like the difference wouldn't be enough to justify it. Should fly compare to our HP Netserver, Dual PIII 600 with 512Mb RAM
Stefan
Has to be Dell since they're our preferred supplier.
The OS will either be 2000 with Exchange 2000 or 2003 with Exchange 2003, but that won't be until later next year.
Spec will be high, but just want to know if the RAID config will make a huge amount of difference on such as small site.
Looks like the difference wouldn't be enough to justify it. Should fly compare to our HP Netserver, Dual PIII 600 with 512Mb RAM
Stefan
30 September 2003, 01:24 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
New server spec. will be:-
Dual P2.8Ghz CPU's
2GB RAM
Dell RAID controller (128Mb cache)
3 x 36GB 15,000 rpm disks
Dual Gigabit NIC
Should be fast enough.
Stefan
Dual P2.8Ghz CPU's
2GB RAM
Dell RAID controller (128Mb cache)
3 x 36GB 15,000 rpm disks
Dual Gigabit NIC
Should be fast enough.
Stefan
30 September 2003, 02:13 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stefan,
The config is more than adequate to run what you wish, Exchange 2003 won't run on Win 2000 (I think), so if its just going to be a member server buy Windows 2003, that way you can move to Ex2003 without having to up the OS as well.
With 3 disks you will have to use a single raid 5 array (sorry if I'm teaching to such eggs), many purists don't think raid 5 for the system files is a good idea (can slow things down - page file etc), but I'm using that exact setup but with 4 disks and it works fine.
Ian.
The config is more than adequate to run what you wish, Exchange 2003 won't run on Win 2000 (I think), so if its just going to be a member server buy Windows 2003, that way you can move to Ex2003 without having to up the OS as well.
With 3 disks you will have to use a single raid 5 array (sorry if I'm teaching to such eggs), many purists don't think raid 5 for the system files is a good idea (can slow things down - page file etc), but I'm using that exact setup but with 4 disks and it works fine.
Ian.
Trending Topics
30 September 2003, 02:26 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Leeds - It was 562.4bhp@28psi on Optimax, How much closer to 600 with race fuel and a bigger turbo?
Posts: 15,239
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
thats a pretty low spec machine..
IBM x335 do dual xeon's in 1u now..
Dell seemed a bit behind the IBM and g3 compaqs when I looked..
David
compaq and ibm only site
IBM x335 do dual xeon's in 1u now..
Dell seemed a bit behind the IBM and g3 compaqs when I looked..
David
compaq and ibm only site
30 September 2003, 02:38 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
David you're as useful as ever 
The machine is high spec enough to cope with 150 users. I've always used Compaq in large corporations, but their low-end stuff isn't any better or worse than Dell IMHO.
Stefan
The machine is high spec enough to cope with 150 users. I've always used Compaq in large corporations, but their low-end stuff isn't any better or worse than Dell IMHO.
Stefan
30 September 2003, 03:41 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Guildford
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have recently moved our exchange 5.5 server to a new more powerful machine server and have used Raid 5 for the whole thing. Works perfect !! (Touches Wood 
)
Simon
(Touches Wood )Simon
30 September 2003, 04:19 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
1x Raid 5 partition = YUCK for Exchange - ever heard of spindle contention?
I'd run with 1x RAID 1 for OS partition, 1x RAID 1 for Logs partition and 1x RAID 5 for Database partition. Best for performance AND it gives you heaps of redunancy. With the cheapness of disks these days, it's daft to do anything else.
I'd run with 1x RAID 1 for OS partition, 1x RAID 1 for Logs partition and 1x RAID 5 for Database partition. Best for performance AND it gives you heaps of redunancy. With the cheapness of disks these days, it's daft to do anything else.
30 September 2003, 04:26 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
disks? cheap? never heard those two mentioned in the same sentance when talking about servers.
cheap and IDE, yes. Hope your not suggesting I use that technology
Miles, we're talking 150-users and 10GB of data here. Can you honestly tell me you'd notice the performance between a RAID 5 array and those seperate arrays during normal daily activity?
Stefan
cheap and IDE, yes. Hope your not suggesting I use that technology
Miles, we're talking 150-users and 10GB of data here. Can you honestly tell me you'd notice the performance between a RAID 5 array and those seperate arrays during normal daily activity?
Stefan
30 September 2003, 04:34 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Depends how heavy the usage will be...
But if they are 10K spin disks, perhaps you wouldn't have a problem with 150 mailboxes. What suggested is best practise
But if they are 10K spin disks, perhaps you wouldn't have a problem with 150 mailboxes. What suggested is best practise
30 September 2003, 04:36 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Leeds - It was 562.4bhp@28psi on Optimax, How much closer to 600 with race fuel and a bigger turbo?
Posts: 15,239
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Well remember to leave yourself plenty of spare space too.. about 2-3 times the size of the db iirc..
Miles will confirm
And yes it would be noticeable.
150 is a fair few users..
I had 7 disks on an exhange 5.5 server for a 1000 user system, but with only 20 - 50 concurrent users.
David
Miles will confirm
And yes it would be noticeable.
150 is a fair few users..
I had 7 disks on an exhange 5.5 server for a 1000 user system, but with only 20 - 50 concurrent users.
David
30 September 2003, 05:02 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Miles, "What suggested is best practise.." I'd be interested to see some facts and figures regarding this. Have you got any links showing side by side comparisons?
For the H/W spec given above I honesty do not think you'd notice the difference. Lets not forget what the object is, users are sending emails. Most of the time size is insignicant. Other times large attachments, users expect delays when attaching 10mb files.
That h/w spec, number of users, raid 5 is more than adequate IMHO.
For the H/W spec given above I honesty do not think you'd notice the difference. Lets not forget what the object is, users are sending emails. Most of the time size is insignicant. Other times large attachments, users expect delays when attaching 10mb files.
That h/w spec, number of users, raid 5 is more than adequate IMHO.
30 September 2003, 05:23 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Server is spec'd with 3 x 36GB 15K discs (asked for costs for 3 x 73GB drives).
Database is currently 9GB, so would be sitting on a new server with 65GB usable space (say 55GB once all the cr@p is installed) or possibly one with 130GB usable space.
That should do them for the next year or so. Can always install/replace the disks if needed.
The only sting in the tail with the Dell servers is the size. You need to jump up some models to get enough space to physically fit 7 disks (or go external).
Stefan
Database is currently 9GB, so would be sitting on a new server with 65GB usable space (say 55GB once all the cr@p is installed) or possibly one with 130GB usable space.
That should do them for the next year or so. Can always install/replace the disks if needed.
The only sting in the tail with the Dell servers is the size. You need to jump up some models to get enough space to physically fit 7 disks (or go external).
Stefan
30 September 2003, 06:19 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Under Sample designs in this document for a branch office server MS recommend:
The layout resembles an Exchange 5.5 server, and the physical design of the server would include the following:
Mirrored system disk, which contains the operating system, application binary files, paging file, and so on.
Mirrored transaction log disk.
RAID-5 database partitions. For the purpose of this example, assume that there are six 9–GB drives that provide 45 GB of usable space.
And check out Server Sizing for Microsoft's recommendations on sizing servers for Exchange.
Storage Solutions for Exchange 2000 Server talks a bit more about NAS and SAN solutions, but it does mention the difference in performance between RAID 0+1, RAID 1 and RAID 5.
Incidentally, I agree with David, having 2-3 times the diskspace available will come in handy if you ever need to recover a database or carry out an offline defrag.
Edit as one of me links was wrong
[Edited by Miles - 9/30/2003 6:22:33 PM]
The layout resembles an Exchange 5.5 server, and the physical design of the server would include the following:
Mirrored system disk, which contains the operating system, application binary files, paging file, and so on.
Mirrored transaction log disk.
RAID-5 database partitions. For the purpose of this example, assume that there are six 9–GB drives that provide 45 GB of usable space.
And check out Server Sizing for Microsoft's recommendations on sizing servers for Exchange.
Storage Solutions for Exchange 2000 Server talks a bit more about NAS and SAN solutions, but it does mention the difference in performance between RAID 0+1, RAID 1 and RAID 5.
Incidentally, I agree with David, having 2-3 times the diskspace available will come in handy if you ever need to recover a database or carry out an offline defrag.
Edit as one of me links was wrong
[Edited by Miles - 9/30/2003 6:22:33 PM]
30 September 2003, 08:43 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
OK thanks for the Technet notes but I know the MS blurb already, hence why I originally asked about using multiple arrays.
What I'm after is real life experience of multiple arrays and a single RAID-5 array. I know the theory, I'm more interested in hearing peoples Exchange configurations, user numbers and average daily loads.
Stefan
[Edited by ozzy - 9/30/2003 10:41:21 PM]
What I'm after is real life experience of multiple arrays and a single RAID-5 array. I know the theory, I'm more interested in hearing peoples Exchange configurations, user numbers and average daily loads.
Stefan
[Edited by ozzy - 9/30/2003 10:41:21 PM]
30 September 2003, 10:38 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless your going to be putting each raid set thru its own controller forget multiple arrays.. You'll be in more trouble with I/O contention on the controller than spindle contention..
The numbers to be concerned about are concurrent users and mailbox sizes..
What do I know about this - have designed/implemented some large X2K/X55 environments (100K seats plus) and have inputed into the JDP programs for X2K/X23K and AD for MS customers, this is where MS gets the details for it's WP and BP guides
The numbers to be concerned about are concurrent users and mailbox sizes..
What do I know about this - have designed/implemented some large X2K/X55 environments (100K seats plus) and have inputed into the JDP programs for X2K/X23K and AD for MS customers, this is where MS gets the details for it's WP and BP guides
01 October 2003, 12:23 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stefan,
Our setup Ex5.5, 200 mailboxes, running on a Dell (not my choice) dual 1gz, 2gb Ram, 5x9gb drives in a raid5 array, (for system files also). The machine skips along nicely, no delay in mail delivery, frequently handling 50meg+ attachments.
Your spec will be fine, only reservation I'd have is as mentioned above get a couple more disks and another controller for the system.
Ian
Our setup Ex5.5, 200 mailboxes, running on a Dell (not my choice) dual 1gz, 2gb Ram, 5x9gb drives in a raid5 array, (for system files also). The machine skips along nicely, no delay in mail delivery, frequently handling 50meg+ attachments.
Your spec will be fine, only reservation I'd have is as mentioned above get a couple more disks and another controller for the system.
Ian
02 October 2003, 01:34 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
One more thing, if the punters have Delivery to PST switched on that reduces the work that the server has to do. ie 1000 mailboxes that deliver to PST will require less of a server than 200 mailboxes that are heavily used on the server.
In our corporate environment, our branch office server spec is Dell (corporate agreement) PE 4600 with dual 2.4Ghz Xeons, 2x RAID controller, 2Gb RAM, 10x disks (2x RAID1, with dedicated Hot and Cold spare), with 3 in RAID5 with dedicated hot spare. Might seem a bit wasteful on diskspace: but due to the inflexibility when splitting the backplane this works out the best; and it affords mega redunancy that we require as most of these systems are in our offices in Nigeria/Algeria/Angola/Egypt.
The weakest spec I'm running is a Poweredge 2550 with 4x disks in two RAID1s - one for OS/Logs and the other for the database. This particular machine has 400 mailboxes with ~300 punters delivering to PST. The database on that machine is only 5Gb.
Of course on the other end of the scale, I could mention the biggest system we have in Europe which is an active/passive Exchange cluster with 3500 mailboxes running on 2x PowerEdge 6650 with quad 1.5Ghz Xeon Procs, 4GB of RAM with a storage enclosure 14x 36Gb (2x RAID 1, 1x RAID5 with a hotspare) drives connected via fibre, but that'd be showing off
In our corporate environment, our branch office server spec is Dell (corporate agreement) PE 4600 with dual 2.4Ghz Xeons, 2x RAID controller, 2Gb RAM, 10x disks (2x RAID1, with dedicated Hot and Cold spare), with 3 in RAID5 with dedicated hot spare. Might seem a bit wasteful on diskspace: but due to the inflexibility when splitting the backplane this works out the best; and it affords mega redunancy that we require as most of these systems are in our offices in Nigeria/Algeria/Angola/Egypt.
The weakest spec I'm running is a Poweredge 2550 with 4x disks in two RAID1s - one for OS/Logs and the other for the database. This particular machine has 400 mailboxes with ~300 punters delivering to PST. The database on that machine is only 5Gb.
Of course on the other end of the scale, I could mention the biggest system we have in Europe which is an active/passive Exchange cluster with 3500 mailboxes running on 2x PowerEdge 6650 with quad 1.5Ghz Xeon Procs, 4GB of RAM with a storage enclosure 14x 36Gb (2x RAID 1, 1x RAID5 with a hotspare) drives connected via fibre, but that'd be showing off
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post