I'm not at all experienced on Exch 2007, but if the same disk recommendations for Exch 2003 still hold true, I have the following advice:
1) Migrate one of your transaction log LUNs to a separate, dedicated RAID 1 group. You want to have your logs on separate spindles if at all possible. I'm not familiar with HP's SAN offering, but you should be able to migate the LUN and have it be transparent to the host. (Since you mentioned having 2 VRAID1 on the second disk group, I'm assuming the host see's these as two different physical disks.) 2) Typically RAID 10 is recommended for hosting info stores, but depending on your user load (read: IOPS), RAID 5 may suit your needs just fine. However, given the number of DBs you're supporting (and not knowing the number/type of users) I would be inclined to recommend at least two RAID5 groups (on dedicated spindles) for hosting each of your storage groups. 3) It may be too late, but I believe it is recommended to build separate storage groups before populating each storage group with multiple databases: Your Setup: SG1 - DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4 SG2 - DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8 Recommended: SG1 - DB1, DB5 SG2 - DB2, DB6 SG3 - DB3, DB7 SG4 - DB4, DB8 The obvious disadvantage is you would want to provide 4 separate RAID 1 groups for logs. - Sean On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 9:15 AM, Jeremy Phillips < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How many disks are in each disk group? > > Thanks, > > Jeremy Phillips > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Travis Krampy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 10:12 AM > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: Re: SAN Setup Recommendations > > There are 2 disk groups actually, one that is a RAID5 and one that is a > RAID1 > > The raid 5 disk group is split into 8 VRAID5 sets and the RAID1 disk group > is split into 2 VRAID1 sets. > > Sorry I was not clear on this. > > Plus this is inherited, i never set this up, thats why im asking the > experts! > > Travis > > "Barsodi.John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sounds like you have one disk group and you've created several LUNs with > varying Vraid types(1,5) within that Disk Group. Just remember the > Vraid1 and Vraid5 sets are sharing the same disks within that Disk > Group. Log writing and DB writing have different write > patterns(sequential vs. random) so placing them on the same set of > spindles could cause head contention. Best practice is separate > spindles for logs and DB. Sounds like resources are limited, and > depending on your performance requirements, this could be fine. > > - John Barsodi > > -----Original Message----- > From: Travis Krampy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 9:50 AM > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: Re: SAN Setup Recommendations > > I think, from how I am looking at it, it seems that all disks on the are > all > together in one big array (RAID5) then broken down into several smaller > VRAID5 arrays. > > It looks like there is about 2TB of disk space allocated to Exchange > each > are 72Gb 10k drives > > Does that help any? > > Thanks > > Travis > > > "Martin Blackstone" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I'm not sure I understand it either. > > Are these luns on separate spindles or all the same ones? How many > disks > > are > > there dedicated to Exchange? > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jeremy Phillips [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 9:01 AM > > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > > Subject: RE: SAN Setup Recommendations > > > > Sounds right at first glance (I'm not sure I understand *exactly* how > the > > SAN is configured) but my main question would be whether the drives > can > > support the iops needed? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jeremy Phillips > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Travis Krampy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 8:28 AM > > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > > Subject: SAN Setup Recommendations > > > > Hi All, > > > > Forgive me if I am not explaining this correctly... > > > > I am currently working in implementing an Exchange 2007 CAS/HT server > as > > well as an exchange 2007 server as a secondary mailbox server with the > > existing Exchange 2003 seerver. > > > > Currently the Exchange 2003 server is setup to have all Logs and DB's > on a > > SAN. > > > > Before I set up the new exchange 2007 back end server, i want to make > sure > > that the SAN is setup properly for Exchange. > > > > As of now, there are 2 storage groups with 4 stores in each storage > group. > > > > On the SAN, each store is stored in 8 individual Luns that are VRAID 5 > > > > the logs are stored seperately for each storage group in their own LUN > > > that > > is a VRAID 1 > > > > so on my exchange server, i have 8 drives that are for stores, and > drives > > for logs. > > > > Does this sound like the SAN is implemented correctly for Exchange? > > > > Please advise > > > > Thanks > > > > Travis > > > > > > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ > > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ > > > > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ > > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ > > > > > > > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ > > > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ > > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~
