Most of our ESX environment is on RAID5 8+1 on an EMC NS20, I haven't
seen any issues performance wise. Some small SQL DB's and 2 Exchange
servers (Journal and DR) Depending on your environment and budget RAID5
would be fine
From: David Baca [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 23, 20
Local array or SAN?
Shook
From: David Baca [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 2:21 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: VMWare RAID 10 or Raid 5
I am looking at installing VMWare in my environment. For about 20
-30 users at th
Good questionlocal
- Original Message
From: Andy Shook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 11:44:23 AM
Subject: RE: VMWare RAID 10 or Raid 5
Local array or SAN?
Shook
From:David Baca
[mailto:
Issues
Subject: Re: VMWare RAID 10 or Raid 5
Good questionlocal
- Original Message
From: Andy Shook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 11:44:23 AM
Subject: RE: VMWare RAID 10 or Raid 5
Local array or SAN?
Is it safe to assume that you meant RAID 5+1?
If not.what is RAID 8?
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Garcia-Moran, Carlos <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Most of our ESX environment is on RAID5 8+1 on an EMC NS20, I haven't
> seen any issues performance wise. Some small SQL DB's and 2 Excha
Shook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 11:49:36 AM
Subject: RE: VMWare RAID 10 or Raid 5
Thinking long term, would you rather have
space or performance? Do you see this implementation growing to a point
where a SAN would be justified?
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 3:00 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: VMWare RAID 10 or Raid 5
At some point yes ...a SAN would be justified. performance is more
important at this point. My next thought is to eventually move to a
SAN. when may depend on the size of my disks. but r
From: Rob Bonfiglio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: VMWare RAID 10 or Raid 5
Is it safe to assume that you meant RAID 5+1?
If not.what is RAID 8?
I believe he means RAID5 configured as 8 drives plus 1 hot spare.
Webster
~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine
Haha yup sorry bout that, Webster is correct 8 Drives Plus One Hot
Spare, all Fiber 15K
From: Webster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 3:16 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: VMWare RAID 10 or Raid 5
From: Rob Bonfiglio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject
accept it can happen faster without loosing it all.
jlc
From: Garcia-Moran, Carlos [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 1:54 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: VMWare RAID 10 or Raid 5
Haha yup sorry bout that, Webster is correct 8 Drives Plus One Hot Spare, all
Fiber
Indeed we are slowly moving towards RAID6 On some of the EMC Systems we
have here.
From: Joseph L. Casale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 9:16 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: VMWare RAID 10 or Raid 5
Just an opinion, but if your going that route, use
> Indeed we are slowly moving towards RAID6 On some of the EMC Systems
> we have here.
Just for my overall perspective on this Raid6 topic: Like anything else,
it's a tradeoff. In this case yet another performance hit for peace of
mind. I wish I could remember the exact formulas and numbers, bu
I have 56 spindles
-Original Message-
From: Jason Gurtz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 9:13 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: VMWare RAID 10 or Raid 5
> Indeed we are slowly moving towards RAID6 On some of the EMC Systems
> we have here.
Ju
My bad. 46 spindles and 10 spares.
-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 9:23 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: VMWare RAID 10 or Raid 5
I have 56 spindles
-Original Message-
From: Jason Gurtz [mailto
14 matches
Mail list logo