Exchange 2007 build - storage considerations

[TekkieDave]

I currently have a mixed 2000/2003 exchange environment, and I would like to install a new Exchange 2007 server, and consolidate all of the mailboxes into the 2007 box over time.

I have less than 200 users, and the average mailbox size is less than 1 gig. Currently the totals of all my *.edb and *.stm for all the offices combined is about 150gb. To make the math easy, I'm planning for 200 users, at 2gb a piece.

I entered this info into the Exchange 2k7 mailbox calculator, and it succeeded in confusing the heck out of me.

My original plan was this:
1 Raid 1 array (mirrored) = 2 450gb drives
- C: - OS partition - 100gb
- D: - logs partition - 350gb
1 Raid 5 array = 6 300gb disks
- E: - Database partition ~1.5tb

After entering this into the E2k7 calculator, it is recommending:
Database Space Required / Replica 514 GB
Log Space Required / Replica 47 GB
Database LUN Disk Space Required / Replica 675 GB
Log LUN Disk Space Required / Replica 58 GB
Restore LUN Size / Node (and / SCR Targets) 140 GB
Total Database Required IOPS / Replica 154
Total Log Required IOPS / Replica 55
Database Read I/O Percentage 53%

Can someone explain exactly what the calculator is recommending? Is the Database LUN required and Database space required different things? Do those need to be on different drives?

Does my original plan seem adequate?

Also, it's just 1 machine, there will be no clustering as of now.

 

[58sniper]

You shouldn't use RAID 5 for anything. The write penalty will be a bottleneck.

We can't say for sure because we don't see all of the info. But you're looking at putting 514GB of data onto 675GB of space, etc.

Different LUN for logs, restore, etc.

I wouldn't put the logs on the OS volume. You also need to account for other logs, like connector and tracking logs.

Of course, I'll ask - why are you looking at Exchange 2007 three years after it came out? It's not the current version anymore.

Pat Richard MVP
Plan for performance, and capacity takes care of itself. Plan for capacity, and suffer poor performance.

http://www.ucblogs.net/blogs/exchange/

 

[TekkieDave]

Exchange 2010 doesn't support upgrading from 2000. Plus 2010 has only been out 6 months.

I wouldn't put the OS and logs on the same volume. I would partition the array into 2 volumes and put the OS on 1 and the transactions on the other.

 

[58sniper]

Exchange 2010 doesn't support upgrading from 2000.

Easily resolved with a 2007 server running in Hyper-V in the middle for the migration. Migrate to 2007, rip out the 2000 stuff, move to 2010, rip out 2007. You end up with a solution that will be supported MUCH longer than 2007. With 200 users, that's a short project.

Plus 2010 has only been out 6 months.

Means nothing. I've moved ~100,000 mailboxes to it, and it rocks. I had several thousand pre-RTM and it was rock solid then, too. You get a 70% reduction in disk IO over 2007, plus a boat load of other features you can only dream about in 2007. Plus, there's already been two updates to 2010.

I wouldn't put the OS and logs on the same volume. I would partition the array into 2 volumes and put the OS on 1 and the transactions on the other.

Same difference. You're fighting disk activity. You've got the OS and paging on one volume (where the paging file can fragment), and the transaction logs on another - same spindles. I'm assuming you plan on putting the binaries, connector logs, tracking logs, and everything else in there somewhere.

You're also stuck using Windows 2008 or earlier. You can't use 2008 R2 (yet).

Pat Richard MVP
Plan for performance, and capacity takes care of itself. Plan for capacity, and suffer poor performance.

http://www.ucblogs.net/blogs/exchange/

 

[TekkieDave]

58Sniper, you have swayed my decision. I actually have a 2003 server sitting powered off that was meant for another purpose. I'm going to install 2007 on that machine, migrate the small offices still on 2000, then deploy 2010 on the production server.

Thanks for the advice.