RE: Vmware Disk Ideas

[Benjamin Zachary - Lists]

Very nice mathematics, Im going to save this email J

 

I didn't really think about the rebuild rate. Everything I do now is SAN0
with SAN0 live replication. I don't even mess with raid on my san's anymore.
I also don't drop in ESX or ESXi w/o it, since the cost is really minimal.
If I get any hiccup on the san, be disk, power, nic, I just failover to the
second one and repair the issue and then it just fails back if theres an
error on the other one. Just my .02

 

I offset the cost of the SAN by 2 ways. One is going with basically no disks
in ESXi (thumb drive for example) or SATA.

 

I build two low end servers and put all the storage there. Since Im in RAID0
I get more disk so for 8 disks I put 4/4 in each SAN device. The cost of a
single CPU with 2GB of ram is only a few hundred dollars, sooo I have a
fully mirrored redundant san for about 1k more.

 

For snapshot of the esxi box you could drop in some 1TB SATA drives (99
bucks at tiger) and just use the local storage of the server for its
backups, or just drop out to an NFS share to a tertiary location.

 

I would imagine the backup vendors will have something that works around the
esxi/esxi model in the very near future to get around some of the shell
scripts required for snapshotting. 

 

 

From: Scott Kaufman at HQ [mailto:skauf...@ittesi.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 2:27 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Vmware Disk Ideas

 

Here's an abbreviated version of notes I've collected over the years on RAID
write penalties, raw spindle IOPS & how to calculate minimum # of spindles.
This has worked well for internal storage & shared storage (low to middle
tier):

RAID0 = write penalty of 0

RAID1 or 10 = write penalty of 2

RAID5 = write penalty of 4

RAID6 = write penalty of 6 or 8 (recently added & depends on the
manufacturer)

 

A single 15K SAS drive generally has a raw max IOPS of 180.  SATA 10k drives
are 160.  Fiber channel 15k drives are 190.  

To calculate minimum number of spindles based on a given IOPS load: (read
ratio + (write ratio * write penalty)) / raw spindle IOPS = # of minimum
spindles [1]

 

The total IOPS load, the read/write ratio, the size of the I/O's, the amount
of caching memory on the raid controller & what RAID level you're using will
all play into how much IOPS you can get out of a storage system.

 

 

Having setup a few ESX systems with internal storage & shared storage using
146GB SAS 15k drives, RAID 5 works extremely well with these disk
configurations [2].

Unless you upgrade the drives to 500GB or higher, I wouldn't use RAID 6 for
a VMFS partition.  Use RAID 6 when the individual disks gets over 500GB in
size, because the rebuild rate might be so long, that the likelihood of
another disk failure during rebuild starts to grow.

 

YMMV, and definitely test the storage system to make sure it will give the
performance you need before you start adding VMs.

 

 

Scott

 

 

[1] an Example:  you determine that 1000 IOPS is needed to handle the VM
load.  Using 180 as the maximum number of IOPS per SAS spindle, and assume
there's a 70/30 read to write ratio, the minimum number of spindles for a
RAID5 partition is: (700+(300*4))/180 = 10.5 spindles needed to handle 1000
IOPS raw.  You can drop a few spindles if you have lots of controller cache
dedicated to writes.

 

[2] That is until you get a VM that is doing 80%+ writes to the disk like
SQL or Exchange, or an undersized VM with a poorly written program that is
thrashing the pagefile.

 

 

From: Brian Desmond [mailto:br...@briandesmond.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 11:41 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Vmware Disk Ideas

 

6 drives is a lot of IOPS. I'd be inclined to say you'll be just fine given
the workload of a typical SBS instance. Just a thought but why not go with
HyperV? It's a lot more painless to manage especially when discussing the
skillset of a typical SBS shop.  

 

Thanks,

Brian Desmond

br...@briandesmond.com

 

c - 312.731.3132

 

From: gswe...@actsconsulting.net [mailto:gswe...@actsconsulting.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 10:30 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Vmware Disk Ideas

 

Thanks Ben and Don,

 

Just wanted to make sure that the performance would be acceptable with 6
drives for Raid6.  I was trying to get 8 drives but they wouldn't go for it.

 

Thanks again


Greg

 

From: Don Ely [mailto:don@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 11:21 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Vmware Disk Ideas

 

+1

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 5:12 AM, Benjamin Zachary - Lists
 wrote:

Hi Greg, 

 

I think running that high performance with that limited users probably won't
make any real difference as far as the client would be able to see.  Maybe
if there is heavy SQL or something on there you could look at RAID10 for the
i/o increase. However, in your description below I w

RE: Vmware Disk Ideas

[Scott Kaufman at HQ]

Here's an abbreviated version of notes I've collected over the years on
RAID write penalties, raw spindle IOPS & how to calculate minimum # of
spindles.  This has worked well for internal storage & shared storage
(low to middle tier):

RAID0 = write penalty of 0

RAID1 or 10 = write penalty of 2

RAID5 = write penalty of 4

RAID6 = write penalty of 6 or 8 (recently added & depends on the
manufacturer)

 

A single 15K SAS drive generally has a raw max IOPS of 180.  SATA 10k
drives are 160.  Fiber channel 15k drives are 190.  

To calculate minimum number of spindles based on a given IOPS load:
(read ratio + (write ratio * write penalty)) / raw spindle IOPS = # of
minimum spindles [1]

 

The total IOPS load, the read/write ratio, the size of the I/O's, the
amount of caching memory on the raid controller & what RAID level you're
using will all play into how much IOPS you can get out of a storage
system.

 

 

Having setup a few ESX systems with internal storage & shared storage
using 146GB SAS 15k drives, RAID 5 works extremely well with these disk
configurations [2].

Unless you upgrade the drives to 500GB or higher, I wouldn't use RAID 6
for a VMFS partition.  Use RAID 6 when the individual disks gets over
500GB in size, because the rebuild rate might be so long, that the
likelihood of another disk failure during rebuild starts to grow.

 

YMMV, and definitely test the storage system to make sure it will give
the performance you need before you start adding VMs.

 

 

Scott

 

 

[1] an Example:  you determine that 1000 IOPS is needed to handle the VM
load.  Using 180 as the maximum number of IOPS per SAS spindle, and
assume there's a 70/30 read to write ratio, the minimum number of
spindles for a RAID5 partition is: (700+(300*4))/180 = 10.5 spindles
needed to handle 1000 IOPS raw.  You can drop a few spindles if you have
lots of controller cache dedicated to writes.

 

[2] That is until you get a VM that is doing 80%+ writes to the disk
like SQL or Exchange, or an undersized VM with a poorly written program
that is thrashing the pagefile.

 

 

From: Brian Desmond [mailto:br...@briandesmond.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 11:41 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Vmware Disk Ideas

 

6 drives is a lot of IOPS. I'd be inclined to say you'll be just fine
given the workload of a typical SBS instance. Just a thought but why not
go with HyperV? It's a lot more painless to manage especially when
discussing the skillset of a typical SBS shop.  

 

Thanks,

Brian Desmond

br...@briandesmond.com

 

c - 312.731.3132

 

From: gswe...@actsconsulting.net [mailto:gswe...@actsconsulting.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 10:30 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Vmware Disk Ideas

 

Thanks Ben and Don,

 

Just wanted to make sure that the performance would be acceptable with 6
drives for Raid6.  I was trying to get 8 drives but they wouldn't go for
it.

 

Thanks again


Greg

 

From: Don Ely [mailto:don@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 11:21 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Vmware Disk Ideas

 

+1

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 5:12 AM, Benjamin Zachary - Lists
 wrote:

Hi Greg, 

 

I think running that high performance with that limited users probably
won't make any real difference as far as the client would be able to
see.  Maybe if there is heavy SQL or something on there you could look
at RAID10 for the i/o increase. However, in your description below I
would look at RAID5/6. ESXi runs about 90% through ram so you don't
really see a lot of disk i/o from that per se. 

 

From: gswe...@actsconsulting.net [mailto:gswe...@actsconsulting.net] 
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 10:47 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Vmware Disk Ideas

 

Just wondering what everyone's idea would be on a VMWARE ESXi that will
run 2 VM's, SBS 2003 and SBS 2008 for some time to migrate.

 

6 x 146 GIG SAS 15K drives running either Raid 6 or Raid 10.  Assuming
the storage loss was fine to Raid 10, how much performance are we going
to see with Raid 10 vs going with Raid 6 and getting the two drive
failure protection and the write hit.

 

Small office about 20 users, Peachtree, SMB size email.  Nothing insane
(Larger mailboxes 1.5GB to 2.5GB) and then just the normal SBS Exchange
and SQL servers for Sharepoint services, about 100+ gig in files now
going to grow at least another 75 to 100 gig over 2 years.

 

I think either way will work well, but I just don't have that much
experience with Raid 6 other than Netapp and was curious?

 

Thanks


Greg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

RE: Vmware Disk Ideas

[Joseph L. Casale]

I would only say pay attention to R5 fault tolerance and rebuild time.
On a busy array, a rebuild for an R5 array can be painfully long, I once 
experienced an additional failure while not fault tolerant and lost it all as 
it was taking for ever to rebuild.

I have a couple ESXi machines running on DL380G5's with 4x146G SAS in R10 on 
P800's and they cruise along nicely...

jlc

From: Benjamin Zachary - Lists [mailto:li...@levelfive.us]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 6:13 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Vmware Disk Ideas

Hi Greg,

I think running that high performance with that limited users probably won't 
make any real difference as far as the client would be able to see.  Maybe if 
there is heavy SQL or something on there you could look at RAID10 for the i/o 
increase. However, in your description below I would look at RAID5/6. ESXi runs 
about 90% through ram so you don't really see a lot of disk i/o from that per 
se.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

RE: Vmware Disk Ideas

[Brian Desmond]

If you're already familiar with running Windows, it's one less platform to 
learn.

Thanks,
Brian Desmond
br...@briandesmond.com

c - 312.731.3132

From: Don Ely [mailto:don@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 11:25 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Vmware Disk Ideas

I'm curious, what's so painful about managing ESX or ESXi?
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Brian Desmond 
mailto:br...@briandesmond.com>> wrote:

6 drives is a lot of IOPS. I'd be inclined to say you'll be just fine given the 
workload of a typical SBS instance. Just a thought but why not go with HyperV? 
It's a lot more painless to manage especially when discussing the skillset of a 
typical SBS shop.



Thanks,

Brian Desmond

br...@briandesmond.com<mailto:br...@briandesmond.com>



c - 312.731.3132



From: gswe...@actsconsulting.net<mailto:gswe...@actsconsulting.net> 
[mailto:gswe...@actsconsulting.net<mailto:gswe...@actsconsulting.net>]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 10:30 AM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Vmware Disk Ideas



Thanks Ben and Don,



Just wanted to make sure that the performance would be acceptable with 6 drives 
for Raid6.  I was trying to get 8 drives but they wouldn't go for it.



Thanks again

Greg



From: Don Ely [mailto:don@gmail.com<mailto:don@gmail.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 11:21 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Vmware Disk Ideas



+1

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 5:12 AM, Benjamin Zachary - Lists 
mailto:li...@levelfive.us>> wrote:

Hi Greg,



I think running that high performance with that limited users probably won't 
make any real difference as far as the client would be able to see.  Maybe if 
there is heavy SQL or something on there you could look at RAID10 for the i/o 
increase. However, in your description below I would look at RAID5/6. ESXi runs 
about 90% through ram so you don't really see a lot of disk i/o from that per 
se.



From: gswe...@actsconsulting.net<mailto:gswe...@actsconsulting.net> 
[mailto:gswe...@actsconsulting.net<mailto:gswe...@actsconsulting.net>]
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 10:47 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Vmware Disk Ideas



Just wondering what everyone's idea would be on a VMWARE ESXi that will run 2 
VM's, SBS 2003 and SBS 2008 for some time to migrate.



6 x 146 GIG SAS 15K drives running either Raid 6 or Raid 10.  Assuming the 
storage loss was fine to Raid 10, how much performance are we going to see with 
Raid 10 vs going with Raid 6 and getting the two drive failure protection and 
the write hit.



Small office about 20 users, Peachtree, SMB size email.  Nothing insane (Larger 
mailboxes 1.5GB to 2.5GB) and then just the normal SBS Exchange and SQL servers 
for Sharepoint services, about 100+ gig in files now going to grow at least 
another 75 to 100 gig over 2 years.



I think either way will work well, but I just don't have that much experience 
with Raid 6 other than Netapp and was curious?



Thanks

Greg







































~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

RE: Vmware Disk Ideas

[gsweers]

ESXi is pretty painless.  HyperV is good stuff, but we have been far
more familiar with Vmware than HyperV at this point and I have to feel
very confident that my guys can support a new method before we put it in
production.   

 

From: Brian Desmond [mailto:br...@briandesmond.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 11:41 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Vmware Disk Ideas

 

6 drives is a lot of IOPS. I'd be inclined to say you'll be just fine
given the workload of a typical SBS instance. Just a thought but why not
go with HyperV? It's a lot more painless to manage especially when
discussing the skillset of a typical SBS shop.  

 

Thanks,

Brian Desmond

br...@briandesmond.com

 

c - 312.731.3132

 

From: gswe...@actsconsulting.net [mailto:gswe...@actsconsulting.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 10:30 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Vmware Disk Ideas

 

Thanks Ben and Don,

 

Just wanted to make sure that the performance would be acceptable with 6
drives for Raid6.  I was trying to get 8 drives but they wouldn't go for
it.

 

Thanks again


Greg

 

From: Don Ely [mailto:don@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 11:21 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Vmware Disk Ideas

 

+1

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 5:12 AM, Benjamin Zachary - Lists
 wrote:

Hi Greg, 

 

I think running that high performance with that limited users probably
won't make any real difference as far as the client would be able to
see.  Maybe if there is heavy SQL or something on there you could look
at RAID10 for the i/o increase. However, in your description below I
would look at RAID5/6. ESXi runs about 90% through ram so you don't
really see a lot of disk i/o from that per se. 

 

From: gswe...@actsconsulting.net [mailto:gswe...@actsconsulting.net] 
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 10:47 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Vmware Disk Ideas

 

Just wondering what everyone's idea would be on a VMWARE ESXi that will
run 2 VM's, SBS 2003 and SBS 2008 for some time to migrate.

 

6 x 146 GIG SAS 15K drives running either Raid 6 or Raid 10.  Assuming
the storage loss was fine to Raid 10, how much performance are we going
to see with Raid 10 vs going with Raid 6 and getting the two drive
failure protection and the write hit.

 

Small office about 20 users, Peachtree, SMB size email.  Nothing insane
(Larger mailboxes 1.5GB to 2.5GB) and then just the normal SBS Exchange
and SQL servers for Sharepoint services, about 100+ gig in files now
going to grow at least another 75 to 100 gig over 2 years.

 

I think either way will work well, but I just don't have that much
experience with Raid 6 other than Netapp and was curious?

 

Thanks


Greg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

Re: Vmware Disk Ideas

[Don Ely]

I'm curious, what's so painful about managing ESX or ESXi?

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Brian Desmond wrote:

>  *6 drives is a lot of IOPS. I'd be inclined to say you'll be just fine
> given the workload of a typical SBS instance. Just a thought but why not go
> with HyperV? It's a lot more painless to manage especially when discussing
> the skillset of a typical SBS shop.  *
>
> * *
>
> *Thanks,*
>
> *Brian Desmond*
>
> *br...@briandesmond.com*
>
> * *
>
> *c - 312.731.3132*
>
> * *
>
> *From:* gswe...@actsconsulting.net [mailto:gswe...@actsconsulting.net]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 03, 2009 10:30 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* RE: Vmware Disk Ideas
>
>
>
> Thanks Ben and Don,
>
>
>
> Just wanted to make sure that the performance would be acceptable with 6
> drives for Raid6.  I was trying to get 8 drives but they wouldn't go for it.
>
>
>
> Thanks again
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> *From:* Don Ely [mailto:don@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 03, 2009 11:21 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: Vmware Disk Ideas
>
>
>
> +1
>
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 5:12 AM, Benjamin Zachary - Lists <
> li...@levelfive.us> wrote:
>
> Hi Greg,
>
>
>
> I think running that high performance with that limited users probably
> won't make any real difference as far as the client would be able to see.
> Maybe if there is heavy SQL or something on there you could look at RAID10
> for the i/o increase. However, in your description below I would look at
> RAID5/6. ESXi runs about 90% through ram so you don't really see a lot of
> disk i/o from that per se.
>
>
>
> *From:* gswe...@actsconsulting.net [mailto:gswe...@actsconsulting.net]
> *Sent:* Monday, February 02, 2009 10:47 PM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Vmware Disk Ideas
>
>
>
> Just wondering what everyone's idea would be on a VMWARE ESXi that will run
> 2 VM's, SBS 2003 and SBS 2008 for some time to migrate.
>
>
>
> 6 x 146 GIG SAS 15K drives running either Raid 6 or Raid 10.  Assuming the
> storage loss was fine to Raid 10, how much performance are we going to see
> with Raid 10 vs going with Raid 6 and getting the two drive failure
> protection and the write hit.
>
>
>
> Small office about 20 users, Peachtree, SMB size email.  Nothing insane
> (Larger mailboxes 1.5GB to 2.5GB) and then just the normal SBS Exchange and
> SQL servers for Sharepoint services, about 100+ gig in files now going to
> grow at least another 75 to 100 gig over 2 years.
>
>
>
> I think either way will work well, but I just don't have that much
> experience with Raid 6 other than Netapp and was curious?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

RE: Vmware Disk Ideas

[Brian Desmond]

6 drives is a lot of IOPS. I'd be inclined to say you'll be just fine given the 
workload of a typical SBS instance. Just a thought but why not go with HyperV? 
It's a lot more painless to manage especially when discussing the skillset of a 
typical SBS shop.

Thanks,
Brian Desmond
br...@briandesmond.com

c - 312.731.3132

From: gswe...@actsconsulting.net [mailto:gswe...@actsconsulting.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 10:30 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Vmware Disk Ideas

Thanks Ben and Don,

Just wanted to make sure that the performance would be acceptable with 6 drives 
for Raid6.  I was trying to get 8 drives but they wouldn't go for it.

Thanks again

Greg

From: Don Ely [mailto:don@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 11:21 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Vmware Disk Ideas

+1
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 5:12 AM, Benjamin Zachary - Lists 
mailto:li...@levelfive.us>> wrote:

Hi Greg,



I think running that high performance with that limited users probably won't 
make any real difference as far as the client would be able to see.  Maybe if 
there is heavy SQL or something on there you could look at RAID10 for the i/o 
increase. However, in your description below I would look at RAID5/6. ESXi runs 
about 90% through ram so you don't really see a lot of disk i/o from that per 
se.



From: gswe...@actsconsulting.net<mailto:gswe...@actsconsulting.net> 
[mailto:gswe...@actsconsulting.net<mailto:gswe...@actsconsulting.net>]
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 10:47 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Vmware Disk Ideas



Just wondering what everyone's idea would be on a VMWARE ESXi that will run 2 
VM's, SBS 2003 and SBS 2008 for some time to migrate.



6 x 146 GIG SAS 15K drives running either Raid 6 or Raid 10.  Assuming the 
storage loss was fine to Raid 10, how much performance are we going to see with 
Raid 10 vs going with Raid 6 and getting the two drive failure protection and 
the write hit.



Small office about 20 users, Peachtree, SMB size email.  Nothing insane (Larger 
mailboxes 1.5GB to 2.5GB) and then just the normal SBS Exchange and SQL servers 
for Sharepoint services, about 100+ gig in files now going to grow at least 
another 75 to 100 gig over 2 years.



I think either way will work well, but I just don't have that much experience 
with Raid 6 other than Netapp and was curious?



Thanks

Greg


























~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

RE: Vmware Disk Ideas

[gsweers]

Thanks Ben and Don,

 

Just wanted to make sure that the performance would be acceptable with 6
drives for Raid6.  I was trying to get 8 drives but they wouldn't go for
it.

 

Thanks again


Greg

 

From: Don Ely [mailto:don@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 11:21 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Vmware Disk Ideas

 

+1

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 5:12 AM, Benjamin Zachary - Lists
 wrote:

Hi Greg, 

 

I think running that high performance with that limited users probably
won't make any real difference as far as the client would be able to
see.  Maybe if there is heavy SQL or something on there you could look
at RAID10 for the i/o increase. However, in your description below I
would look at RAID5/6. ESXi runs about 90% through ram so you don't
really see a lot of disk i/o from that per se. 

 

From: gswe...@actsconsulting.net [mailto:gswe...@actsconsulting.net] 
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 10:47 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Vmware Disk Ideas

 

Just wondering what everyone's idea would be on a VMWARE ESXi that will
run 2 VM's, SBS 2003 and SBS 2008 for some time to migrate.

 

6 x 146 GIG SAS 15K drives running either Raid 6 or Raid 10.  Assuming
the storage loss was fine to Raid 10, how much performance are we going
to see with Raid 10 vs going with Raid 6 and getting the two drive
failure protection and the write hit.

 

Small office about 20 users, Peachtree, SMB size email.  Nothing insane
(Larger mailboxes 1.5GB to 2.5GB) and then just the normal SBS Exchange
and SQL servers for Sharepoint services, about 100+ gig in files now
going to grow at least another 75 to 100 gig over 2 years.

 

I think either way will work well, but I just don't have that much
experience with Raid 6 other than Netapp and was curious?

 

Thanks


Greg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

Re: Vmware Disk Ideas

[Don Ely]

+1

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 5:12 AM, Benjamin Zachary - Lists  wrote:

>  Hi Greg,
>
>
>
> I think running that high performance with that limited users probably
> won't make any real difference as far as the client would be able to see.
> Maybe if there is heavy SQL or something on there you could look at RAID10
> for the i/o increase. However, in your description below I would look at
> RAID5/6. ESXi runs about 90% through ram so you don't really see a lot of
> disk i/o from that per se.
>
>
>
> *From:* gswe...@actsconsulting.net [mailto:gswe...@actsconsulting.net]
> *Sent:* Monday, February 02, 2009 10:47 PM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Vmware Disk Ideas
>
>
>
> Just wondering what everyone's idea would be on a VMWARE ESXi that will run
> 2 VM's, SBS 2003 and SBS 2008 for some time to migrate.
>
>
>
> 6 x 146 GIG SAS 15K drives running either Raid 6 or Raid 10.  Assuming the
> storage loss was fine to Raid 10, how much performance are we going to see
> with Raid 10 vs going with Raid 6 and getting the two drive failure
> protection and the write hit.
>
>
>
> Small office about 20 users, Peachtree, SMB size email.  Nothing insane
> (Larger mailboxes 1.5GB to 2.5GB) and then just the normal SBS Exchange and
> SQL servers for Sharepoint services, about 100+ gig in files now going to
> grow at least another 75 to 100 gig over 2 years.
>
>
>
> I think either way will work well, but I just don't have that much
> experience with Raid 6 other than Netapp and was curious?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Vmware Disk Ideas

[Benjamin Zachary - Lists]

Hi Greg, 

 

I think running that high performance with that limited users probably won't
make any real difference as far as the client would be able to see.  Maybe
if there is heavy SQL or something on there you could look at RAID10 for the
i/o increase. However, in your description below I would look at RAID5/6.
ESXi runs about 90% through ram so you don't really see a lot of disk i/o
from that per se. 

 

From: gswe...@actsconsulting.net [mailto:gswe...@actsconsulting.net] 
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 10:47 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Vmware Disk Ideas

 

Just wondering what everyone's idea would be on a VMWARE ESXi that will run
2 VM's, SBS 2003 and SBS 2008 for some time to migrate.

 

6 x 146 GIG SAS 15K drives running either Raid 6 or Raid 10.  Assuming the
storage loss was fine to Raid 10, how much performance are we going to see
with Raid 10 vs going with Raid 6 and getting the two drive failure
protection and the write hit.

 

Small office about 20 users, Peachtree, SMB size email.  Nothing insane
(Larger mailboxes 1.5GB to 2.5GB) and then just the normal SBS Exchange and
SQL servers for Sharepoint services, about 100+ gig in files now going to
grow at least another 75 to 100 gig over 2 years.

 

I think either way will work well, but I just don't have that much
experience with Raid 6 other than Netapp and was curious?

 

Thanks


Greg

 

 

 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~