Hardware Recommendation...? 1

[baronne]

Hi,
We're looking at implementing Exchange 2003. I am in the process of checking out which hardware would be suitable. We have around 1000 users 400 PCs/laptops.
Is a SAN an overkill? - I was looking at the HP Modular Smart Array 1000 Starter Kit - if so, I am looking at a HP GL380 with 6 drives... what configuration would best suit exchange?
any recommendations?
cheers


:: baronne
------------------
"lekker, shot bru

 

[ScottCr]

Will you be using Office2003 in Cached Exchange mode?
You have 1000 users and 400 client machines so how many concurrent users will you have?
Will you be using mailbox quotas? How big are mailboxes at the moment?

To be honest from the information you've given I don't think you need a SAN.

http://scottcross.blogspot.com

Windows and NT Admin.

 

[baronne]

...hi.. what do you mean by "Office2003 in Cached Exchange mode" - never heard of that?
Concurrently I guess we could have anything up to say around 100/200 users... it's a school... so I guess it depends...

:: baronne
------------------
"lekker, shot bru

 

[AndyPeck]

I think you'll get many answers on this, So here mine DL380 is a good start.
A pair of 72GB's for OS/APPS, A pair of 72GB's for logs. Then look at the MSA30 if the MSA1000 is out of reach. The MSa30 will give you another 14 disk bays, then you can work out how much space you need, If you give 1000 users 300Mb each, you'll be at 300GB on day one, plus I always have a enough space to have a backup/copy/restore on the disk, So I would be buying 6x300GB@RAID1+0=900GB,then a pair of disks for public folder if used in anger


When I said DL380 and really meant the DL385, why.. well Exchange 12 is around the corner and it will require a 64Bit hardware, and if your only buying the hardware now it may live long enough to see a upgrade to Exchange 12.

Should you MS pricing be on CPU the dual core is only charged a 1 CPU and not 2,

Hope this helps

Andy

 

[NickFerrar]

A SAN along with a disk-to-disk-tape strategy would make your life a lot easier but at a huge cost. We just have single servers spread around different sites with local storage/backup.

 

[baronne]

As we're also consolidating our two main file servers into one, I felt it might be sensible to go for a SAN so we could hang the machines off the SAN which would accomodate future growth.
The HP DL385's look good... but tell me... are the Intel Xeons not 64 bit?
I agree to keep in mind Exchange 12 - hence the need to accomodate hardware-wise.
The MSA30 looks like a cheaper option but it's only SCSI and can hang just one server off it... whereas the MAS1000 can hang a few machines off.
So buying dual core doesn't count as two processors? I seem to vaguely remember reading somewhere that M$ will be changing their processor licensing to accomodate dual core... hmmm...

:: baronne
------------------
"lekker, shot bru

 

[Zelandakh]

Intel Xeons are 64 bit. 2003 is 32 bit if you want Exchange to run.

You've only got 6 disks and 1,000 users. You may as well give them lots of internal mail envelopes as that thing will crawl. For 1,000 users you'll need a lot more spindles. Certainly another 10. Talk to a reseller about a DAS (cheapest) or a SAN. For that you're talking a 14 drive DAS for the stores, a 7 disk DAS for the TLs and a 6 disk internal for the OS / Apps.

Even if you only budget $50 a head, you'll soon eat $50,000!

 

[ScottCr]

But only 100 - 200 concurrent users.

http://scottcross.blogspot.com

Windows and NT Admin.

 

[Zelandakh]

100-200 concurrent still need decent access and the 1,000 need to have the mailboxes stored.

 

[xmsre]

With the MSA 1000, you can get an EL8 switch module. this gives you 8 FC ports. In the shelf, you have 14 disks. For Exchange, you want to stay with mirroring to avoid excessive write penalties. This means RAID 1/RAID 10. You figure the OS and page file local. If this is not a cluster, you could put the SMTP directories on local disk as well.

For 1000 Exchange users, you're talking 1000 DB IOPS at 1 IOPS/user, and 100 log IOPS. The logs will fit on a mirror. With the RAID 10 write penalty, you're look at 10-12 spindles in RAID 10 for the databases. You'll basically use the whole shelf just for exchange. True, you could hang tape and with the proper software agents do a SAN to tape backup.

You may want to look at something like the NetApp FAS 270 as well. The controller comes integrated with the first shelf, and you can add a second shelf. Thanks to the proprietary virtualization layer, there is no write penalty on NetApp. You could do the 1000 users in 7 or 8 spindles. You can connect to the FAS270 via FC or iSCSI. If you go FC, you'll need a switch and HBAs. If you go iSCSI, you can use the MS software initiator and a 1Ge NIC. iSCSI with jumbo frames enabled has comparable performance to FC, and the software initator is good 18000 IOPS or so, well beyond the 1000 IOPS you would require for Exchange. With snapshots and the hardware vss provider, SAN to tape is fairly simple. You can get a tape FC HBA for the FAS and attach an LTO 2 or LTO 3 drive. Youll still have half a shelf left that you can leverage for File & print, and you have the capability to add a second shelf.

I guess the thing I'm trying to say is shop around. Look at HP, Look at NetApp, Look at EMC, etc. See what the vendors have to offer and what the price ranges are.

 

[baronne]

thanks for the comments.. I really think I'm going to have to rethink my plan... I mean currently our mail system runs on a Cobalt Raq 550
All this talk of very high-end equipment and what we currently have seems to cope. I think for our needs... we are a school and not like an enterprise where mail is flying in all over the show.
I know that over time, we will start to make more and more use of Exchange and ultimately need to expand.
baronne

:: baronne
------------------
"lekker, shot bru