I recently went the route of medium budget ($3500), and got a 2U server w/ 5
73GB SCSI3 drives and a RAID controller. I split it like so:
Drives 1 - 2
RAID1
Partition 1: OS / Apps (36GB)
Partition 2: Logs (36GB)
Drives 3 - 5
RAID5
Partition 1: Database (146GB)
We do a full backup nightly, so log file space is never an issue.
Performance w/ dual 2.4GHz and 2GB RAM is fantastic. On average, 50 - 75
users on at any one time. 375 mailboxes.
Steven
---
Steven Dickenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Computer Network Manager
The Key School, Annapolis Maryland
-----Original Message-----
From: Ball Kevin KJ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 10:56 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Comments on performance
RAID controllers are very much better now than they used to be. Disks are
now so much bigger than they used to be. And there are some great budget
servers available with room for just a few disks, which cost a good deal
more when adding an expansion cabinet and controller needed to support the
number of drives you need for the 'standard' way of doing things.
That's why, for the real low budget, small numbers of users scenario, we do
exactly what you suggest, Craig: all the disks go in a big raid, and we
partition 3 logical droves on it. Sure, we're taking a performance hit; but
our users don't even notice. It works great for <50 users. If they're
extra jumpy, we keep one disk as a hot spare, ready to replace any failed
disk immediately.
We've been doing this for all our small servers for a couple of years now,
and we've never had a controller failure yet.
Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: Edgington, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 27 July 2004 04:10
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Comments on performance
Aside from poor performance by placing logs and dbs on the same raid set
is the risk of loosing the raid set _and_ tlogs at the same time in the
case of a failure of the raid set.
Stick with what Steve recommends.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve
Molkentin
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 9:59 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Comments on performance
Craig,
Ultimately, it depends on your expectation of load and budget, but my
thoughts would be:
Raid1 - Programs (programs and logs *could* share the same mirror)
Raid1 - Logs
Raid5 - database
I am happy for that to be shot down with the better solution - there are
more out there that know more than I.
themolk.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig A. Mills [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, 27 July 2004 12:51 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Comments on performance
>
>
> A long while ago read the optimal configuration for a
> exchange server was three separate physical partitions. One
> for programs, one for logs and one for exchange database. If
> you had to choose between a single
> raid5 5 drive raid or mirrored program, mirrored logs and
> raid5 three drives for data, which would you choose?
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface:
> http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
> ext_mode=&lang=english
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> %%email.unsub%%
> Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at:
> Jupitermedia Corp.
> Attn: Discussion List Management
> 475 Park Avenue South
> New York, NY 10016
>
> Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
%%email.unsub%%
Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at:
Jupitermedia Corp.
Attn: Discussion List Management
475 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016
Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.
_________________________________________________________________
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang
=english
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
%%email.unsub%%
Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at:
Jupitermedia Corp.
Attn: Discussion List Management
475 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016
Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.
_________________________________________________________________
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang
=english
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
%%email.unsub%%
Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at:
Jupitermedia Corp.
Attn: Discussion List Management
475 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016
Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.
_________________________________________________________________
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at:
Jupitermedia Corp.
Attn: Discussion List Management
475 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016
Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.
