Hi, I would like to start by making clear that I am not an Exchange guru. I work for a small but very busy company as one of the System Admins. I need some input on possible storage designs and hardware selection for Exchange 2007 migration. I am in the process of getting quotes from our server vendor and want to make sure I order the right stuff. We are not into spending 20K on a server, but if we need to spend 12-15K to get the best performance, we'll be able to justify the amount. We currently have about 50 employees and 120 mailboxes. Our average sent/received is 30/120. We currently have a quota of 3GB per mailbox and some member of management have 6GB. The average message size is 200KB but it can go up to 50MB or even more some times. We are not planning on having an edge server or using the UM role, so the CAS, HUB and Mailbox roles are going to reside on the same box. I have a few questions about the partition design and array sets: I know is recommended to have the exchange logs, system partition and databases on their own separate disks. Is a design like this a good design or can it be improved? 1 Raid 1 set for OS (2 x 146GB) 1 Raid 10 set for Logs ( 4 x 146) 1 Raid 10 set for DBs (6 x 146) I am planning, and I am opened to other ideas, to create 2 storage groups and put a database on each SG that way I can place 60 users on one DB and 60 user on another DB. Should I create two LUNs on the DB Raid 10 disk set, one for each SG? The same question applies to the Logs. Should I create a LUN for each db logs? or Should I create 4 disk sets and isolate the DBs and Logs for each SG. What about the TEMP folder? Should I create a LUN for it? Also, I am going to need multiple Raid controller to be able to create multiple types of array sets? Ex. Raid 1, 10, etc. on the same server. Currently I'm looking at a Dell PowerEdge T710 with this specs as an option and would like to know your opinion about it. -2 Intel® Xeon® E5630 2.53Ghz, 12M Cache,Turbo, HT, 1066MHz Max Mem (Quad core) -16GB of memory -the chassis can hold up to 16 HDs. -If I need to go with 16 146GB 15K RPM Serial-Attach SCSI 6Gbps 2.5in my quote still under 14K which is OK if I have to. Your help will be really appreciated. J.D.

Is a design like this a good design or can it be improved? 1 Raid 1 set for OS (2 x 146GB) 1 Raid 10 set for Logs ( 4 x 146) 1 Raid 10 set for DBs (6 x 146) I am planning, and I am opened to other ideas, to create 2 storage groups and put a database on each SG that way I can place 60 users on one DB and 60 user on another DB. Should I create two LUNs on the DB Raid 10 disk set, one for each SG? The same question applies to the Logs. Should I create a LUN for each db logs? I would do like this... with the setup above of disks 1 raid array (raid 1+0) 2*146gb for OS 1 raid array (raid 1+0) 2*146gb for LOGS 1 raid array (raid 5) 8*146gb for DB Jonas Andersson MCTS: Microsoft Exchange Server 2010, Configuration | MCITP: EMA | MCSE/MCSA Blog: http://www.testlabs.se/blog

Hi Jonas, I thought the minimum amount of disks for a Raid 1+0 was 4. Also, any inputs on this: Should I create two LUNs on the DB Raid 10 disk set, one for each SG? The same question applies to the Logs. Should I create a LUN for each db logs? or Should I create 4 disk sets and isolate the DBs and Logs for each SG. What about the TEMP folder? Should I create a LUN for it? Also, I am going to need multiple Raid controller to be able to create multiple types of array sets? Ex. Raid 1, 10, etc. on the same server. Currently I'm looking at a Dell PowerEdge T710 with this specs as an option and would like to know your opinion about it. -2 Intel® Xeon® E5630 2.53Ghz, 12M Cache,Turbo, HT, 1066MHz Max Mem (Quad core) -16GB of memory -the chassis can hold up to 16 HDs. -If I need to go with 16 146GB 15K RPM Serial-Attach SCSI 6Gbps 2.5in my quote still under 14K which is OK if I have to.

In this size/scale of environment I think it's overkill but of course if you read the mailbox storage calc it gives you these numbers :) Make sure that the raid controller can handle RAID 5 and RAID 1+0 I usually don't work with Dell servers so i can't their model names.. but with HP we have used a lot of DL380'sJonas Andersson MCTS: Microsoft Exchange Server 2010, Configuration | MCITP: EMA | MCSE/MCSA Blog: http://www.testlabs.se/blog

I'm a bit confused now. You mentioned that you would do this: 1 raid array (raid 1+0) 2*146gb for OS 1 raid array (raid 1+0) 2*146gb for LOGS 1 raid array (raid 5) 8*146gb for DB I thought the minimum amount of disks for a Raid 1+0 was 4. Also Would I get a better performance if I use RAID 1+0 for the DBs?

Of course, RAID 1+0 will give you better performance but will not give you so much storage to use.. It's your choice :) Just told you how I would do :) Here's a link about RAID levels.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_RAID_levelsJonas Andersson MCTS: Microsoft Exchange Server 2010, Configuration | MCITP: EMA | MCSE/MCSA Blog: http://www.testlabs.se/blog

Jonas, I really appreciate your input as I understand that it is coming from a professional with plenty of experience. I was not trying to be smart ^%$ or anything like that. I am just trying to understand your recommendation. Even the link you sent me does not mention anything about Raid 1+0 and 2 or 4 disks as minimum configuration. Thanks again for your recommendation.

Refer to RAID1, sorry if it have been any misunderstandings here :) Raid 1 is mirroring No problem :) Just ask if you wonder anything!Jonas Andersson MCTS: Microsoft Exchange Server 2010, Configuration | MCITP: EMA | MCSE/MCSA Blog: http://www.testlabs.se/blog

Clear :) Should I split the mailboxes on two SG? If so, Is it recommended to create a LUN per SG or a raid array per SG? And the same for the logs? and the TEMP? Sorry for so many questions...

Personally I would recommend you to keep the databases under 50GB if you need to recover them, but that will depend on what backup solution you got and that's another question :) 120 users*3GB each? = 360 GB If you're running Standard Edition split them into 5 storage groups, 4 if you use public folders.. In enterprise environment you would like one LUN per SG and one LUN per SG LOG to get the most storage performance Jonas Andersson MCTS: Microsoft Exchange Server 2010, Configuration | MCITP: EMA | MCSE/MCSA Blog: http://www.testlabs.se/blog

We do full daily backups to tapes and we have Exchange enterprise edition. This might be an stupid question, but does Exchange 2K7 does some load balancing during the creation of new mailboxes or do I have to specify on what SG I want to create the mailbox. I'm just thinking because it seems like it could potentially be a lot to maintain. Based on your recommendation I would have about 7 SG to manage, correct?

Great! Yes, that sounds good! You need to specify where you want the mailboxes to be... unfortunately there is no load balancing on that Maybe in the future :) who knows... Jonas Andersson MCTS: Microsoft Exchange Server 2010, Configuration | MCITP: EMA | MCSE/MCSA Blog: http://www.testlabs.se/blog

Thanks!

I'm sorry, one more bonus question. :) If you have the option to do: 1 raid array (raid 1+0) 2*146gb for OS 1 raid array (raid 1+0) 2*146gb for LOGS 1 raid array (raid 5) 8*146gb for DB all drives @ 15K rpm or 1 raid array (raid 1+0) 2*146gb for OS 1 raid array (raid 1+0) 2*146gb for LOGS 1 raid array (raid 1+0) 4*300gb for DB the 300GB drives at 10K rpm and the 146 @ 15K I'm trying to decide performance vs capacity. I don't think we will ever use 600GB for the DBs. Which one would you go with?

I think i would go with the 300gb 10k disks because Exchange 2007 handles the I/O around 70% better than Exchange 2003 Don't hesitate, ask as many questions you want :)Jonas Andersson MCTS: Microsoft Exchange Server 2010, Configuration | MCITP: EMA | MCSE/MCSA Blog: http://www.testlabs.se/blog

Hello Jonas, Can you clarify something for me? I've read before that it is not a good practice to place the Exchange DBs in a bin LUN bug instead to create multiple LUNs. When people talk about LUNs for Exchange, are they referring partitions created in Windows? I also read that it is recommended to do LUN at the hardware level instead of software. Does this means to create LUNs at the RAID controller configuration instead of creating partitions in Windows?

Hi In the storage world when SAN's are used they use the term LUN When you use local storage (read disks) you can call them array (depending on which vendor), in the SAN world disk array is something "else" so don't mix them together :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_Unit_NumberJonas Andersson MCTS: Microsoft Exchange Server 2010, Configuration | MCITP: EMA | MCSE/MCSA Blog: http://www.testlabs.se/blog

If you received the help you wanted, mark the answear as correct :) Jonas Andersson MCTS: Microsoft Exchange Server 2010, Configuration | MCITP: EMA | MCSE/MCSA Blog: http://www.testlabs.se/blog

Hi geekinput, Some other information for you. About how to planning the mailbox server and the storage you could refer to below link: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb201699(EXCHG.80).aspx http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb738147(EXCHG.80).aspx Sure, the minium amount of disk for raid 1+0 is 4, agree with Jonas, it is better for os. Every SG would has one db and log. You could set them in each LUN. There is no NLB for mailbox, but you could use cluster (scr/ccr) to achieve the HA. As Jonas referred, if the SG less than 50G, it is easier and better to do restore, so you could CAL it according to your actual scenario, and then how many SG you need. Regards! gavin