Good RAID Setup for SBS 2003

[richgill]

I have an SBS 2003 server currently set up with 4 x 36GB disks in a single (hardware based) RAID 5 array. The Exchange server is heavily used and we are also running low on disk space. I am thinking of buying 6 disks (maximum the server will take) and setting up the RAID again. Any idea what would be the best configuration? eg:

1) Two sets of 3 disks in RAID5
2) 2 disks mirrored for OS/pagefile/logs and 4 disks RAID5
3) 2 disks mirrored for OS/pagefile/logs and 4 disks RAID10
4) 6 disks in RAID5

thanks!

 

[nsanto17]

I would prefer 2 sets of RAID5

Everyone is diffferent.

 

[58sniper]

Option 2

RAID 1 is faster than RAID 5.

You don't mention how big the environment is, or how much data you have. Even 3 RAID 1 arrays would work, with the OS/paging on one, TLs on the second, and stores on the third.

Pat Richard, MCSE MCSA:Messaging CNA
Microsoft Exchange MVP
Want to know how email works? Read for yourself -

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2821.txt

 

[ShackDaddy]

Check out the Microsoft recommendations for sizing/planning Exchange storage:

http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=69063

In larger environments, spindles are the name of the game, but in the SBS world, I think running three mirrors is probably fine.

ShackDaddy
Shackelford Consulting

 

[richgill]

Thanks for the replies.

58sniper - 3 raid 1 arrays - not a bad idea!
As for environment...I currently have four 36GB in Raid5, so about 100GB usable and it's nearly full (about 70GB file shares and 20GB email). I am thinking of buying six 73GB disks. I would like to buy more but am restricted on money!

ShackDaddy - thanks for the link! The article is interesting but is more intended for a larger setup.

Do you think three mirrors is better than one mirror and Raid10? With the former I would have OS/paging on 1st, TLs on 2nd, Stores on 3rd and file shares on 2nd & 3rd.

 

[58sniper]

Yes, I think it's better. It splits the workload among different arrays on different spindles.

Use 15k RPM drives if you can. Especially for the transaction logs.

Don't put file stores on the same array as the TLs.

Pat Richard, MCSE MCSA:Messaging CNA
Microsoft Exchange MVP
Want to know how email works? Read for yourself -

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2821.txt

 

[richgill]

>>Don't put file stores on the same array as the TLs.
Do you mean File Shares or Exchange Stores?
thanks.

 

[58sniper]

Sorry - my bad. I wouldn't put file shares on the same array as the transaction logs.

Pat Richard, MCSE MCSA:Messaging CNA
Microsoft Exchange MVP
Want to know how email works? Read for yourself -

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2821.txt

 

[richgill]

I might run out of space if I did that! Unless I put some file shares on the OS partition - which I'm not keen on!

 

[58sniper]

I'm not keen on putting file shares on any of those arrays, actually. Better to get a file server for file serving!

Pat Richard, MCSE MCSA:Messaging CNA
Microsoft Exchange MVP
Want to know how email works? Read for yourself -

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2821.txt

 

[richgill]

Of course...if I had the money!!!

 

[LWComputingMVP]

My 2 cents...

Get an external SATA enclosure and use eSATA cables (multilane cables) to connect it. Cheaper than SCSI and some say better performance. You can get a RAID card to go with it. If you can afford 6 SCSI disks you can get a couple of eSATA enclosures and plenty of disk space and controllers. Then I'd setup a RAID 10 array which you would then partition into two partitions (one for Exchange database and one for file sharing). Then add a mirror for the OS and/or Exchange log files.

But the one thing I'll say - I would NOT put the Exchange databases on the same partition as a file share - I wouldn't want the possibility that users fill up the drive and cause problems with exchange. You can use partitioning as a type of hard quota.