#7 has worried me as well. We're currently on Exchange 2003 and I have dedicated a fair number of spindles to our mailbox servers to handle current IO trends. I've been contemplating the jump from E2k3 to E2k10, but was a little worried how management would perceive the recommended change in disk configurations.
With that said, E2K10 wouldn't be negatively impacted if hosted on 15K fiber channel drives in a RAID 1 or RAID 10 configuration, would it? I know in our environment, Exchange/Outlook performance is pretty important to Executive management, so there's already an expectation for dedicated resources and the costs associated with that. If the IO profile of E2K10 is "that" much better than E2K3, than I would probably just consider going with a smaller number of disks, but I just can't wrap my head around the whole JBOD recommendation using ATA storage. - Sean On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Sherry Abercrombie <saber...@gmail.com>wrote: > #4 & #7 will be a deal breaker for me. We are very heavily invested into > an HP-EVA SAN (which is quickly running out of room), and I have a very > large chunk of that reserved for the LCR portion of my Exchange 2007 > environment. LCR is my primary reason for moving to E2K7. Primary E2K7 box > will be physical, and the LCR will be virtual on the SAN. I was going to do > both on virtual but we just don't have the space on the SAN for 2 copies of > the data. Looking as if this will be another skipped version for me. (I > skipped E2K and went from 5.5 to E2K3) > > > On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Michael B. Smith < > mich...@owa.smithcons.com> wrote: > >> Now that it's RTM'ed, I can express my opinion publically. I've got a >> couple of bad things to say about it: >> >> 1] Lots of normal functionality (i.e., things your average admin will need >> to do) isn't in the GUI console. You have to do it in PowerShell. >> >> 2] Retention Policies are a step backwards from Messaging Records >> Management. >> >> 3] The implementation of the Archive Mailbox is half-baked, at best. >> >> 4] All of the Continous Replication solutions are gone - I'm most >> disappointed with the removal of SCR and LCR which did not require Windows >> Enterprise. The only HA solution is DAG (based on failover clustering, which >> requires Windows Enteprise). In USD, this puts about a $6K licensing premium >> on HA. >> >> 5] STILL no two-box HA solution. While you can colocate CA/HT on MB now, >> for that to be a HA solution, you have to have a clustered LB solution >> sitting in front (if the LB isn't clustered, then you don't have a HA >> solution - you just have a resilient backend). With the cost of that, you >> might as well have two more CA/HT boxes sitting in front running Windows >> NLB. >> >> 6] No method of doing an upgrade without either: a] breaking HA of an >> existing installation, or b] purchasing new hardware. >> >> 7] Microsoft is pushing SATA for storage HARD. People using SAN are now at >> a price/feature disadvantage. Not using SAN is going to be a hard-sell for a >> lots of techies, I think, when just one release ago they were pushing >> management for lots of expensive SAN disk. >> >> Not to say that there aren't lots of good/great features - there are. As >> always - you should evaluate the features/functionality for each company, >> one by one. >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: Jason Gurtz [jasongu...@npumail.com] >> Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 10:31 AM >> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues >> Subject: RE: Exchange 2007 >> >> > If you're about to deploy an Exchange server and can wait, I am >> hearing >> > only good things about Exchange 2010. >> >> Finally, useful cross-browser OWA! >> >> It was about time :) >> >> ~JasonG >> >> >> > > > -- > Sherry Abercrombie > > "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." > Arthur C. Clarke >
