I'm in the process of building new Exchange 2013 servers in preparation of an upcoming migration from 2010.  I saw a recommendation to give each database (10 total) as well as each log file their own separate datastore with its own SCSI adapter.  This seems like it may be a bit overkill, especially for an Exchange environment with 500 users at an average flow of about 30msg/day.  I was thinking about configuring each mailbox with 3 separate LUNs and Datastores, (1) OS, (2) Databases (3) Logs and giving each its on SCSI contoller.  I'm wondering if this will be sufficient...  Thoughts?

That's not a bit of overkill, it's massive overkill.

What really matters is the drive count.

Hi,

For your question, I recommend refer to below link to know more details about storage design for Exchange 2013:
https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dn879075(v=exchg.150).aspx
https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee832792(v=exchg.150).aspx

Meanwhile, here's an belog with a scenario for discussion about Exchange 2013 deploymention:
http://blogs.technet.com/b/exchange/archive/2013/05/06/ask-the-perf-guy-sizing-exchange-2013-deployments.aspx

Hope it will helpful.

That recommendation is no longer valid since Exchange 2010 . There is absolutely no issue to have your database and transaction log on the same storage volume.

Btw, for a 500 mailbox system, you don't need that much databases. 2 should be more than enough. So your 3 LUN can be (1) OS (2) DB1+log (3) DB2+log

• Edited by Li Zhen 4 hours 30 minutes ago

That recommendation is no longer valid since Exchange 2010 . There is absolutely no issue to have your database and transaction log on the same storage volume.

Btw, for a 500 mailbox system, you don't need that much databases. 2 should be more than enough. So your 3 LUN can be (1) OS (2) DB1+log (3) DB2+log

• Edited by Li Zhen Monday, July 27, 2015 2:58 AM

That recommendation is no longer valid since Exchange 2010 . There is absolutely no issue to have your database and transaction log on the same storage volume.

Btw, for a 500 mailbox system, you don't need that much databases. 2 should be more than enough. So your 3 LUN can be (1) OS (2) DB1+log (3) DB2+log

• Edited by Li Zhen Monday, July 27, 2015 2:58 AM

That recommendation is no longer valid since Exchange 2010 . There is absolutely no issue to have your database and transaction log on the same storage volume.

Btw, for a 500 mailbox system, you don't need that much databases. 2 should be more than enough. So your 3 LUN can be (1) OS (2) DB1+log (3) DB2+log

The 10 databases are used more for departmental isolation, though now that I think about it I don't think it's really necessary...?

• Edited by DG1212 19 hours 30 minutes ago

That recommendation is no longer valid since Exchange 2010 . There is absolutely no issue to have your database and transaction log on the same storage volume.

Btw, for a 500 mailbox system, you don't need that much databases. 2 should be more than enough. So your 3 LUN can be (1) OS (2) DB1+log (3) DB2+log

The 10 databases are used more for departmental isolation, though now that I think about it I don't think it's really necessary...?

• Edited by DG1212 Monday, July 27, 2015 11:56 AM

That recommendation is no longer valid since Exchange 2010 . There is absolutely no issue to have your database and transaction log on the same storage volume.

Btw, for a 500 mailbox system, you don't need that much databases. 2 should be more than enough. So your 3 LUN can be (1) OS (2) DB1+log (3) DB2+log

The 10 databases are used more for departmental isolation, though now that I think about it I don't think it's really necessary...?

• Edited by DG1212 Monday, July 27, 2015 11:56 AM

It's necessary only if you're doing something different with the databases.

Another reason for splitting up into spmaller pieces would be for a restore scenario.

it's faster to restore 10 smaller databases than 2 large ones. 

One thing that did strike me was that you should check whether your installation is standard or enterprise.

Standard only allows up to 5 databases and if run enterprise edition and you don't require online archive or inplace-hold then you may run a more installation than necessary.

Another reason for splitting up into spmaller pieces would be for a restore scenario.

it's faster to restore 10 smaller databases than 2 large ones. 

One thing that did strike me was that you should check whether your installation is standard or enterprise.

Standard only allows up to 5 databases and if run enterprise edition and you don't require online archive or inplace-hold then you may run a more installation than necessary.

It's Enterprise.

In terms of creating a DAG with 10 DB's, is that any different than a DAG with 2 DB's?

Hi,

It's similar.

Here's an article about High Availability Factors for mailbox server storage design:
https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee832790(v=exchg.141).aspx

Also, refer to Database Availability Group Design Examples to get more information:
https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd979781%28v=exchg.141%29.aspx

Thanks

Not really.