> Further reading suggests a single server could maintain multiple copies of > the Exchange database on a single server's JBODs, but that's got to be more > overhead than just RAID 1'ing it.
No, that LCR functionality was pulled. 1 DB copy per server max. Thanks, Brian Desmond br...@briandesmond.com<mailto:br...@briandesmond.com> c - 312.731.3132 From: Carl Houseman [mailto:c.house...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 3:50 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Disk configuration in new server OK, I over-interpreted and under-defined that answer... Here's what MS says (italics mine): "RAID (Redundant Array of Independent Disks) is often used to both improve the performance characteristics of individual disks (by striping data across several disks) as well as to provide protection from individual disk failures. With the advancements in Exchange 2010 high availability, RAID is no longer a required component for Exchange 2010 storage design. However, RAID is still an essential piece to Exchange 2010 storage design for stand-alone servers as well as high availability solutions which require either additional performance or greater storage reliability. The table below provides guidance for the common RAID types that can be used with the Exchange 2010 Mailbox server." http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee832792.aspx Further reading suggests a single server could maintain multiple copies of the Exchange database on a single server's JBODs, but that's got to be more overhead than just RAID 1'ing it. Carl From: Jon Harris [mailto:jk.har...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 4:42 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Disk configuration in new server I would think at the least you would want RAID 1. Jon On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Carl Houseman <c.house...@gmail.com<mailto:c.house...@gmail.com>> wrote: JBOD's. E2010 does its own DR thing, RAID not required. But again, that's just what I've heard/read. Carl From: Evan Brastow [mailto:ebras...@automatedemblem.com<mailto:ebras...@automatedemblem.com>] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 3:55 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Disk configuration in new server Hi guys, I'm just revisiting this after getting pulled in a few different directions over the past week. Dumb question... if I use RAID 1 on the OS and log volumes, and it's not recommended that I use RAID 5 for the data, what *should* I use for the data? Thanks :) Evan From: Erik Goldoff [mailto:egold...@gmail.com<mailto:egold...@gmail.com>] Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 7:31 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Disk configuration in new server I'd say run mirrors for all volumes except the data (information store) if your IS size is already large ... but best decision will be based on your current disk usage and projected growth. Depending on your backup schedule and traffic volume, your log files may require large storage too. Erik Goldoff IT Consultant Systems, Networks, & Security ' Security is an ongoing process, not a one time event ! ' ________________________________ From: Evan Brastow [mailto:ebras...@automatedemblem.com<mailto:ebras...@automatedemblem.com>] Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 4:17 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Disk configuration in new server Hi guys. I'm looking at this server: http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.aspx?EDC=1723415 to be our next Exchange 2010 Enterprise server (currently running 2003 Ent. on 7 year old hardware.) What I'm wondering is, if I wanted to have a separate RAID array for the 1) OS and Exchange 2) Exchange data 3) Exchange logs... then do I need 3 RAID controllers? I've never set up multiple RAID arrays on a server before. Or do I even need to separate them out? Storage is not a big concern, but speed is. Thanks, Evan ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
