I just met with my EMC Rep last week as we need to add my disk to our SAN. Here are the figures that he gave me on IOPS:
15K RPM - 180 IOPS (FC Drives) 10K RPM - 120 IOPS (FC Drives) 7.2K RPM - 70-80 IOPS (SATA Drives) HTH. Joe Fox Systems/Network Administrator Mobile# (716) 846-9308 http://www.linkedin.com/in/josephfoxjr On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Sean Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 ~
