new hardware setup

we are planning to install exchange 2003 on new hardware and need some advice
on disk management and planning.

we have two raid controllers and 8 disks. after discussing with a few
consultants and friends here is the summary..

they all agreed on this- the first controller is setup as raid 1 with one
partition for the OS, Exchange install, and pagefile.

some suggested- first controller, raid 1, create 2 partitions, 1 for OS and
Exchange, 1 for pagefile.

then the second controller was varied..
1st 4 disks setup as raid10 for database, and last 2 disks as raid 1 for logs.
1st 4 disks setup as raid5 and 1 hotspare, last 2 raid 1 for logs
another suggestions was just setup 3 raid 1 arrays.

which one is more reasonable? and is it best to put the pagefile on the same
drives as the OS even though its a separate partition?

thanks.

Mark
Thu May 05 03:16:18 CDT 2005

On Wed, 4 May 2005 12:48:01 -0700, "JL" <JL@discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote:

>we are planning to install exchange 2003 on new hardware and need some advice
>on disk management and planning.
>
>we have two raid controllers and 8 disks. after discussing with a few
>consultants and friends here is the summary..
>
>they all agreed on this- the first controller is setup as raid 1 with one
>partition for the OS, Exchange install, and pagefile.

Not a separate partition for the pagefile, you could experience head
travel delays as information is paged out to a volume a "long" way
away.
>
>some suggested- first controller, raid 1, create 2 partitions, 1 for OS and
>Exchange, 1 for pagefile.

Pagefile on the OS is probably fine for you. There are best practices
and guides but you'll need to read and test. Most people agree that
the pagefile on a dedicated volume isn't ideal.
>
>then the second controller was varied..
>1st 4 disks setup as raid10 for database, and last 2 disks as raid 1 for logs.
>1st 4 disks setup as raid5 and 1 hotspare, last 2 raid 1 for logs
>another suggestions was just setup 3 raid 1 arrays.

Seems a bit overkill. I'd set up some RAID1 sets. Disks are of a size
and speed these days where RAID5/10 is no longer the E2K3 best
practice. Have you got Enterprise or Standard? You'll get six disks.
That would give you two storage groups on pair 1 and pair 2. The logs
for both could go on pair 3.

There are a lot of ways to cut it, your suggestions are as valid as
any, mine is just another one.

>
>which one is more reasonable? and is it best to put the pagefile on the same
>drives as the OS even though its a separate partition?
>
>thanks.

JL
Thu May 05 08:52:05 CDT 2005

Thanks.

I thought the pagefile on its own separate disk is a good thing. We are
running Standard now, but will probably need to move to Enterprise. Right now
the store is about 12GB, so we want to plan for at least the next 3-5 years.
I don't want to be running out of space in 2 years.

"Mark Arnold [MVP]" wrote:

> On Wed, 4 May 2005 12:48:01 -0700, "JL" <JL@discussions.microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
> >we are planning to install exchange 2003 on new hardware and need some advice
> >on disk management and planning.
> >
> >we have two raid controllers and 8 disks. after discussing with a few
> >consultants and friends here is the summary..
> >
> >they all agreed on this- the first controller is setup as raid 1 with one
> >partition for the OS, Exchange install, and pagefile.
>
> Not a separate partition for the pagefile, you could experience head
> travel delays as information is paged out to a volume a "long" way
> away.
> >
> >some suggested- first controller, raid 1, create 2 partitions, 1 for OS and
> >Exchange, 1 for pagefile.
>
> Pagefile on the OS is probably fine for you. There are best practices
> and guides but you'll need to read and test. Most people agree that
> the pagefile on a dedicated volume isn't ideal.
> >
> >then the second controller was varied..
> >1st 4 disks setup as raid10 for database, and last 2 disks as raid 1 for logs.
> >1st 4 disks setup as raid5 and 1 hotspare, last 2 raid 1 for logs
> >another suggestions was just setup 3 raid 1 arrays.
>
> Seems a bit overkill. I'd set up some RAID1 sets. Disks are of a size
> and speed these days where RAID5/10 is no longer the E2K3 best
> practice. Have you got Enterprise or Standard? You'll get six disks.
> That would give you two storage groups on pair 1 and pair 2. The logs
> for both could go on pair 3.
>
> There are a lot of ways to cut it, your suggestions are as valid as
> any, mine is just another one.
>
> >
> >which one is more reasonable? and is it best to put the pagefile on the same
> >drives as the OS even though its a separate partition?
> >
> >thanks.
>
>

Mark
Thu May 05 09:45:10 CDT 2005

On Thu, 5 May 2005 06:52:05 -0700, "JL" <JL@discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote:

>Thanks.
>
>I thought the pagefile on its own separate disk is a good thing. We are
>running Standard now, but will probably need to move to Enterprise. Right now
>the store is about 12GB, so we want to plan for at least the next 3-5 years.
>I don't want to be running out of space in 2 years.

Your original post talked about the pagefile on a partition on the
same disk which isn't the same as a different disk.

I'd still go with the raid1 idea, purely because the disks are so damn
big these days. You shouldn't really take the database sizes beyond
40/50GB for restore timeframe reasons.

If you had six disks at 145GB each, 15,000rpm you can practically fix
a group with stores on 1 raid1 set and then another group on another
raid1 set. the third raid1 set houses the logs. If you want to expand
you can put opposing logs on storage groups and then another storage
group on the 3rd raid1 set, storing the logs from SG1 on either raid1
set1 or 2.

with one SG/store the raid5 would be better performing than raid1 but
you could find a degredation as you add stores to the raid5 set.

Steve
Tue May 17 11:36:58 CDT 2005

Mark,

Seems like you have been a great deal of help to a lot of people and was
curious if you could offer some assistance to my current situation. I
reposted below what I sent out last week.


>I hope to not make this sound so much like a newbie posting but honestly
this is my first exchange migration and installation and just have a few
questions if anyone could PLEASE help. I have a new box with 4-146.8GB
drives, I know that RAID 5 is not the best solution for an exchange box and
read that OS should be RAID 1, Logs - RAID 1 and Database RAID 1+0. My
question is upon setup of the array what is the best recommendation on how
to accomplish this? In the configuration it does ask what type of RAID to
use (0,1,5,1+0) and which drives, but I am confused on how to accomplish the
mixed RAID types and what size to make each so that they function properly.
It will be loaded with Exchange 2k3 and Server 2k3 and will be replacing a
2000 box. If I run a 1+0 that will give me 146GB for logs but only 146GB for
message store, that seems like a lot for logs and the OS and not enough for
storage.I got a recommendation before to put the OS, Bin and logs on set 1
and set 2 would be the stores, does this seem right? I would really like the
most space available for the stores, as this will be a high volume box. What
would be the best partition setup? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance!



Steve
"Mark Arnold [MVP]" <mark@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:h7lj71lhlradtl3ergijnch6dnaa0oh040@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 4 May 2005 12:48:01 -0700, "JL" <JL@discussions.microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
>>we are planning to install exchange 2003 on new hardware and need some
>>advice
>>on disk management and planning.
>>
>>we have two raid controllers and 8 disks. after discussing with a few
>>consultants and friends here is the summary..
>>
>>they all agreed on this- the first controller is setup as raid 1 with one
>>partition for the OS, Exchange install, and pagefile.
>
> Not a separate partition for the pagefile, you could experience head
> travel delays as information is paged out to a volume a "long" way
> away.
>>
>>some suggested- first controller, raid 1, create 2 partitions, 1 for OS
>>and
>>Exchange, 1 for pagefile.
>
> Pagefile on the OS is probably fine for you. There are best practices
> and guides but you'll need to read and test. Most people agree that
> the pagefile on a dedicated volume isn't ideal.
>>
>>then the second controller was varied..
>>1st 4 disks setup as raid10 for database, and last 2 disks as raid 1 for
>>logs.
>>1st 4 disks setup as raid5 and 1 hotspare, last 2 raid 1 for logs
>>another suggestions was just setup 3 raid 1 arrays.
>
> Seems a bit overkill. I'd set up some RAID1 sets. Disks are of a size
> and speed these days where RAID5/10 is no longer the E2K3 best
> practice. Have you got Enterprise or Standard? You'll get six disks.
> That would give you two storage groups on pair 1 and pair 2. The logs
> for both could go on pair 3.
>
> There are a lot of ways to cut it, your suggestions are as valid as
> any, mine is just another one.
>
>>
>>which one is more reasonable? and is it best to put the pagefile on the
>>same
>>drives as the OS even though its a separate partition?
>>
>>thanks.
>