Ah...but if MSFT says "I don't support this specific particular use case" then people will take that WORD FOR WORD. Lawyers will pick it apart.
I don't like it either - but I understand why they do it. It's a balancing act, like so many other things. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com -----Original Message----- From: Kurt Buff [mailto:kurt.b...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 5:27 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Guidance on disks for Exchange 2010 On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:34, Michael B. Smith <mich...@smithcons.com> wrote: > Microsoft is not in the business of supporting third party storage > systems. :-P True, but they could explain the use case that is offending, couldn't they? > If you call PSS and complain "Exchange is slow" and it's because every > time a new block is written to the database and this causes the > database to expand, the thinly-provisioned disk institutes a 100 ms > delay to allocate that additional storage, why would you expect Microsoft to > support that? See - that wasn't so hard to describe, was it? A simple thing like that is *not* out of their reach. > Regards, > > Michael B. Smith > Consultant and Exchange MVP > http://TheEssentialExchange.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kurt Buff [mailto:kurt.b...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 1:28 PM > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: Re: Guidance on disks for Exchange 2010 > > So, if I host my Exchange DB on a Lefthand that is thin provisioned, that's > unsupported? > > Or, continuing on my Lefthand example, I've shut down the VM, expanded the > space allocated to the drive on which the DB resides, then use diskpart to > expand the partition to the size of the allocated disk - this isn't supported? > > It's so very vague... > > Kurt > > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 09:01, Michael B. Smith <mich...@smithcons.com> wrote: >> Note: I am not recommending you go against published guidance from MSFT. >> >> >> >> That being said – that recommendation is primarily against the >> original Hyper-V. VHDs created by the original version of Hyper-V, or >> disks that have been upgraded from Virtual Server or Virtual PC, expand >> quite slowly. >> >> >> >> Disks that are created by Hyper-V R2 are only a couple of percentage >> points slower than fixed size VHDs. Negligible. >> >> >> >> I know a number of companies that are running Hyper-V R2 >> installations with variable disks. So far, at least, it hasn’t been an issue. >> >> >> >> I don’t know how (or even if) this impacts VMware or XenServer. >> >> >> >> So….to tie this back to your question, if the storage virtualization >> causes Exchange to notice whenever the disk expands, it’s not a good fit. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> Michael B. Smith >> >> Consultant and Exchange MVP >> >> http://TheEssentialExchange.com >> >> >> >> From: Sobey, Richard A [mailto:r.so...@imperial.ac.uk] >> Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 6:35 AM >> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues >> Subject: Guidance on disks for Exchange 2010 >> >> >> >> In the virtualisation guide for Exchange 2010, in the section on >> storage this is written: >> >> >> >> Virtual disks that dynamically expand aren't supported by Exchange. >> >> >> >> Does anyone know if this also applies to a disk presented to a >> physical server via some form of storage virtualisation appliance? >> Said disk would be presented as 100GB, for example, and the OS would >> see 100GB, but would grow to reach this size at the storage level. >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> >> >> Richard >> >> > > >
