would you recommend SATA drive vs SAS w Exch2010?

[mlchris2]

Im preparing to upgrade to Exch2010. I have done some reading and found that SATA drives are a viable option for Exchange 2010....

Is anyone running Exch2010 with SATA drives?

I initially spec a server that was a RAID1/RAID5 with SAS and thought bout running a RAID1 w SATA for OS and then 3 seperate SATA disks and build the DAG group around the 3 drives...

anyone got any feedback, advice, opinions?

Mark C.

 

[theravager]

There is a lot of large exchange organizations that are currently using sata drives.

The storage calculator is the tool you would wish to use to work out what fits. You can get all the metrics you require from performance counters (assuming you are on 2007) to be able to decide if sata is a fit for you.

 

[58sniper]

The ability to use SATA drives and achieve acceptable performance is one of the best reasons to move to 2010.

I've got installations with a LOT of users on Exchange 2010 running on SATA disks. I'm also consulting on a project where 75k users will move to 2010 on SATA. As theravager mentions, check the calculator, and test in a lab.

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/

 

[mlchris2]

from the reading I've done today, it looks like SATA and Exch 2010 is a good fit.

I've messed with the Exchange calculator and it's a bit giberish at parts. But it did give me some good info.

I wish I could run the DAGS on 3 different drives within the server, but from what I found today, it looks like that is not possible... must be different servers.

so I think I am going to run RAID1/RAID5 with 7.2K 160GB and 500GB SATA drives. Do you think I will hinder performance with the SATA drives in RAID arrays?



Mark C.

 

[58sniper]

I wish I could run the DAGS on 3 different drives within the server

What would the point be? The whole idea behind it is that you remove single points of failure. Having them on the same server doesn't do that. It's also designed to do load balancing. Again - not possible with a single server. What you're thinking of is Local Continuous Replication, a (deprecated) feature of Exchange 2007.

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/

 

[mlchris2]

sniper, after reading some more... I discovered just that and the benefits of DAG's.

I decided to go with SATA drives instead of SAS...

thanks for all the help.

Mark C.

 

[58sniper]

The only time I would use SAS in Exchange 2010 is if I already had that storage. I wouldn't recommend it as a solution to a customer. It's overkill. Glad to see you made a wise choice.

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/

 

[zbnet]

SATA drives do tend to have lower duty cycles, though, so you might end up replacing them more frequently than SAS drives. Sometimes it's not just about initial costs.

 

[58sniper]

True, OpEx costs are something you have to factor in. However, warranty replacement of drives is fairly trivial.

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/