RE: Exchange 2000 and IBM's FAStT SAN

2003-01-21 Thread Mark Harford
No experience with IBM kit myself, but have you used diskpar to align
tracks/sectors optimally?  Pierre Bijaoui's talk at the MEC highlighted the
importance of this when dealing with a SAN.

Also check out the W2K Resource Kit on this subject at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/prodtechn
ol/windows2000serv/reskit/serverop/part2/sopch08.asp

rgrds

Mark

-Original Message-
From: Clemens, Rick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Posted At: 20 January 2003 21:21
Posted To: Exchange 55 list server
Conversation: Exchange 2000 and IBM's FAStT SAN
Subject: Exchange 2000 and IBM's FAStT SAN


Exchange 2000 SP3
Windows 2000 Advanced Server SP3
Trend Micro Scanmail 6.x

LUN 1 = Storage Group 1, 8 Disks Raid 10, 136GB
LUN 2 = Transaction Logs for SG1, 2 Disks Mirrored, 36GB
LUN 3 = Storage Group 2, 8 Disks Raid 10, 136GB
LUN 4 = Transaction Logs for SG2, 2 Disks Mirrored, 36GB

While monitoring the Physical Disk - Disk Queue Length for all 4 LUNS I
noticed that on LUN 1 my Queue Length peaks at 100 - 150 periodically and
averages about 10.  Is this normal?  I only have 10 users on this server at
this time and am scheduled to migrate another 700 over this weekend.  The 10
users have not complained about performance but I always thought that the
Disk Queue Length should never exceed 1 per disk.  Any thoughts?  Anyone
else using the FAStT SAN solution?

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


BBCi at http://www.bbc.co.uk/

This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain 
personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically 
stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system, do 
not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in 
reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the 
BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will 
signify your consent to this.


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



Exchange 2000 and IBM's FAStT SAN

2003-01-20 Thread Clemens, Rick
Exchange 2000 SP3
Windows 2000 Advanced Server SP3
Trend Micro Scanmail 6.x

LUN 1 = Storage Group 1, 8 Disks Raid 10, 136GB
LUN 2 = Transaction Logs for SG1, 2 Disks Mirrored, 36GB
LUN 3 = Storage Group 2, 8 Disks Raid 10, 136GB
LUN 4 = Transaction Logs for SG2, 2 Disks Mirrored, 36GB

While monitoring the Physical Disk - Disk Queue Length for all 4 LUNS I
noticed that on LUN 1 my Queue Length peaks at 100 - 150 periodically and
averages about 10.  Is this normal?  I only have 10 users on this server at
this time and am scheduled to migrate another 700 over this weekend.  The 10
users have not complained about performance but I always thought that the
Disk Queue Length should never exceed 1 per disk.  Any thoughts?  Anyone
else using the FAStT SAN solution?

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]