We are currently running on Exchange 2003 Standard. We are approaching the 75GB Database limit (SP 2). We want to go to Enterprise. We currently run it on an IBM xSeries 346 Server with 3 x 73 GB 15K drives running Raid 5 and 1 x 146GB drive and 4 GB of memory and 2 Dual Core cpus. I want to run 2003 Enterprise on an IBM X3650 with 6 x 300GB 15K drives with Raid 10 capabilities, 1 quad core cpu with 4GB of memory. The current Exchange Server was pre existing. I want to make the new one more efficient. The old has 1 large volume and 1 single drive for transaction logs. I am trying to determine a good drive configuration. I will have about 700 mailboxes. I would like to spread them over 2 or 3 information stores so I can better manage mailbox size quotas and 1 for public folders. Not being an Exchange heavy I have been trying to find information on drive configurations but you get soo many hits and then you get bogged down with explanations and links within links and on and on. There is no Front End Server. Is it possible to get some suggestions on how to partition or how many volumes I shoul make? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations strongm on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Drive allocation for exchange 2003 Enterprise 4
- Thread starter Dfig
- Start date
-
1
- #2
With that many mailboxes you might want to look at a cluster? At the very least do a FE/BE scenario. You could actually re-purpose your old (current) Exchange server to be your FE server.
As for you new server, I would do a RAID 1 for the OS, A RAID 1 for the Transaction logs and a RAID 10 (or at least a RAID 5) for the database store(s). Also beef up your RAM more than 4 GB. Exchange 2k7 is 64-bit only so you will be able to utilize it. I think at least 8 GB of RAM. A single Quad-core will do but if you can spend the extra money get dual quad-cores.
As for you new server, I would do a RAID 1 for the OS, A RAID 1 for the Transaction logs and a RAID 10 (or at least a RAID 5) for the database store(s). Also beef up your RAM more than 4 GB. Exchange 2k7 is 64-bit only so you will be able to utilize it. I think at least 8 GB of RAM. A single Quad-core will do but if you can spend the extra money get dual quad-cores.
-
1
- #3
The guy wants 2003 Enterprise not 2007 so 4GB will have to do.
Agree about the partitioning though RAID10 not 5 is better.
700 mailboxes doesn't really need a cluster or even a pair of Exchange boxes unless you have the budget for it (though an Exchange 2003 cluster needs outside help to implement).
Agree about the partitioning though RAID10 not 5 is better.
700 mailboxes doesn't really need a cluster or even a pair of Exchange boxes unless you have the budget for it (though an Exchange 2003 cluster needs outside help to implement).
I agree about the the RAID10 being better than the RAID 5 but at the minimum a RAID 5 for the stores.
A cluster is not necassary but would certainly provide some level of redundancy. 700 Mailboxes can be a nightmare from a disaster recovery standpoint; so any additional redundancy is always something that should be considered. But you are right, it is not necassary.
And I realize he wants Exchange 2k3 Enterprise. But he currently has Exchange 2k3 Standard which means he will have to buy Exchange Enterprise which means he will buy Exchange 2k7 Enterprise because you can no longer buy Exchange 2003. I would not recommend downgrading to Exchange 2k3 Enterprise I would go with Exchange 2k7 enterprise.
And if he runs Exchange enterpise 2003 on Windows enterprise he can use more than 4 GB of RAM. Which I would recommend doing if he is dead set on using Exchange 2k3 instead of 2k7.
A cluster is not necassary but would certainly provide some level of redundancy. 700 Mailboxes can be a nightmare from a disaster recovery standpoint; so any additional redundancy is always something that should be considered. But you are right, it is not necassary.
And I realize he wants Exchange 2k3 Enterprise. But he currently has Exchange 2k3 Standard which means he will have to buy Exchange Enterprise which means he will buy Exchange 2k7 Enterprise because you can no longer buy Exchange 2003. I would not recommend downgrading to Exchange 2k3 Enterprise I would go with Exchange 2k7 enterprise.
And if he runs Exchange enterpise 2003 on Windows enterprise he can use more than 4 GB of RAM. Which I would recommend doing if he is dead set on using Exchange 2k3 instead of 2k7.
- Thread starter
- #5
Thanks for the info. To run 2007 I would have to beef up Srvers. and if I read it correc tly 2007 does not support Outlook 2000 which we have quite a few of. Also 2007 handles public folders a littl e differently ffrom what I read. As far has the disks go, could I have different partitions on the same volume for my OS and Trabsaction logs? All my drives are 300GB.
-
1
- #6
Your OS and paging should be on separate spindles, and your Transaction Logs and Databases should also all be on separate spindles.
Pat Richard MVP
Plan for performance, and capacity takes care of itself. Plan for capacity, and suffer poor performance.
Pat Richard MVP
Plan for performance, and capacity takes care of itself. Plan for capacity, and suffer poor performance.
Pat is right. Partitioning is a false sense of separation. Exchange likes spindles. The more the better. And keep everything on separate spindle sets.
As for Exchange 07 versus 03, definitely run W2k3 Enterprise edition so you can add more than 4 GB of RAM to your server. And I would seriously consider moving your Outlook 2000 clients to Outlook 2003 or 2007. Those clients would be better off using OWA in Exchange 03 then Outlook 2000 (in my opinion).
As for Exchange 07 versus 03, definitely run W2k3 Enterprise edition so you can add more than 4 GB of RAM to your server. And I would seriously consider moving your Outlook 2000 clients to Outlook 2003 or 2007. Those clients would be better off using OWA in Exchange 03 then Outlook 2000 (in my opinion).
I agree about the Outlook upgrade as discussed in another thread.
W Enterprise will add considerable extra cost and 700 mailboxes with 4GB of RAM should be ok if you don't have the budget. If you do have the budget, buy a new server instead and put W2k3 x64 Standard which supports up to 32GB of RAM.
W Enterprise will add considerable extra cost and 700 mailboxes with 4GB of RAM should be ok if you don't have the budget. If you do have the budget, buy a new server instead and put W2k3 x64 Standard which supports up to 32GB of RAM.
- Thread starter
- #9
Thanks for the useful posts. I will have to re-think things a bit based on all your suggestions. My problem is still wth my drives. Wth the OS on one volume running Raid 1 which takes 2 drives, the Databases on another volume running raid 10 which takes at least 2 drives and the transaction logs on another Raid 1 volume which takes the last of my 2 x drives does not give me much wiggle room. 6 drives is the max # of drives I can have on my X3650. I was hoping to have more storage for my Databases. 300gb is a lot for the OS which is why I was inquiring about partitioning.
Purchase a DS3200 and expand that baby! That's what I did (and then purchased an EXP3000 when 18 drives wasn't enough).
I'm Certifiable, not cert-ified.
It just means my answers are from experience, not a book.
There are no more PDC's! There are DC's with FSMO roles!
I'm Certifiable, not cert-ified.
It just means my answers are from experience, not a book.
There are no more PDC's! There are DC's with FSMO roles!
- Thread starter
- #12
Thanks for the info. That being the case with raid 10 I have even less choices. How catastophic would it be to have my OS and Log files on the same volume since the expansion option may not be an option given the sign of the times and we are a not for profit organization?
Honestly, if it were me, I'd probably stick the OS on a RAID 1 and do a RAID1/0 on the other four disks and put all the data stores and TL's there. I think it's the only compromise you really have considering performance vs risk.
I'm Certifiable, not cert-ified.
It just means my answers are from experience, not a book.
There are no more PDC's! There are DC's with FSMO roles!
I'm Certifiable, not cert-ified.
It just means my answers are from experience, not a book.
There are no more PDC's! There are DC's with FSMO roles!
Depending on the RAM you can afford, I'd do a RAID 1 for OS/Apps using a 100GB partition and the other 200GB I'd do another RAID1 for the logs. Then the remaining 4 I'd RAID10 for the stores and anything else required over about 90% with 10% for an RSG in case you ever need something spare.
Either would work though.
Either would work though.
- Thread starter
- #15
You have no choice, really. Leave it on the OS volume. Whether it's on the OS or the TL volume, it's still hitting the same spindles.
Time to hit management up for some more drives and a shelf.
Pat Richard MVP
Plan for performance, and capacity takes care of itself. Plan for capacity, and suffer poor performance.
Time to hit management up for some more drives and a shelf.
Pat Richard MVP
Plan for performance, and capacity takes care of itself. Plan for capacity, and suffer poor performance.
-
1
- #17
Look, With exchange 2003 and cached mode clients, the read/write ratio is about 2:1. The write penalty of RAID 5 is double your read/write ratio. You'll use twice as many spindles in RAID 5 to reach the performance level of RAID 10. On IBM Serveraid use RAID 1e, which is vraid 10 on top of a stripe set. You can have an odd number of spindles.
Even without Blackberry in your environment, and using cached mode, You're likely upwards of 1 IOP/user in Exchange 2003. With 700 users, you just don't have enough spindles however you slice it. You need a mirror for the OS, a mirror for the logs, and 6 spindles in RAID 10 for the DBs. It's time to spring for an external array or maybe an entry level iSCSI SAN.
Even without Blackberry in your environment, and using cached mode, You're likely upwards of 1 IOP/user in Exchange 2003. With 700 users, you just don't have enough spindles however you slice it. You need a mirror for the OS, a mirror for the logs, and 6 spindles in RAID 10 for the DBs. It's time to spring for an external array or maybe an entry level iSCSI SAN.
And the paging file can go on the OS volume but that isn't your current headache.
Tell Management that Exchange being implemented like this will be dog slow out of the box and will only get worse.
As Scotty was fond of saying "She canna take nae more o' this".
Tell Management that Exchange being implemented like this will be dog slow out of the box and will only get worse.
As Scotty was fond of saying "She canna take nae more o' this".
- Thread starter
- #20
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Helpful tip
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question