That I don't know. I believe they are Fujitsu Fibre Channel drives (10K and 15K) for our Clariion CX3-10. Not sure on the OEM of the SATA drives for the same. For my application it's a SAN being used for Oracle, but I'll double check those numbers.
Come to think of it, it was a lunch meeting with the engineer and our sales guy, so he could have been exaggerating some. :) Thanks for the explanation. Joe Fox Systems/Network Administrator Mobile# (716) 846-9308 http://www.linkedin.com/in/josephfoxjr On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 11:19 AM, Michael B. Smith < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is that sequential read only? > > > > 'Cuz those numbers seem high. Very high. What are the physical drive types > and models? If you can't get those, the relevant metrics are: 1] inter-track > latency, 2] full-bore average read access, and 3] full-bore average write > access. > > > > For Exchange 2007 database access, which is completely random, per 10 K RPM > spindle you generally see something like 1] 1 ms, 2] 8 ms, and 3] 12 ms. On > average, read:write is 1:1, so you average 8 + 12 = 20 / 2 = 10 ms average > access. This gives you an IOPS of 1000 ms / (10 ms + 1 ms) = 91 IOPS > > > > Big difference in performance and capacity planning between 91 IOPS and 120 > IOPS. > > > > I covered this recently in: > > > > > http://theessentialexchange.com/blogs/michael/archive/2008/09/19/it-s-all-about-the-iops-silly.aspx > > > > and > > > > > http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0809&L=EMO-NEWSLETTER&T=0&F=&S=&P=1470 > > > > Note that 100% sequential read eliminates the inter-track latency, and the > same drive gives you an IOPS of 125, much closer to the numbers you were > told. You need to verify that you are being told what you THINK you are > being told. Salespeople tend to quote the most favorable number… > > > > Regards, > > > > Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP > > My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael > > Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange > > > > *From:* Joe Fox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 23, 2008 11:02 AM > > *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues > *Subject:* Re: SAN Setup Recommendations > > > > 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 ~
