Fairly new to Clustering - Some questions i am trying to find answers to 1. On each node - do you install the Exchange installation on the local drive or on the san shared drives? 2. Recommendations for shared drives is 4 LUNS 1 lun for smtp and mta (Raid 1) 2 disks 1 lun for database (Raid 5) 3 disks 1 lun for logs (Raid 1) 2 disks 1 lun for quorum (Raid 1) 2 disks Is a total of 9 disks correct for configuration of active/passive cluster?
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:27:08 -0800, Roberto R wrote: >Fairly new to Clustering - Some questions i am trying to find answers to > > >1. On each node - do you install the Exchange installation on the local >drive or on the san shared drives? Has to be on the local. >2. Recommendations for shared drives is >4 LUNS >1 lun for smtp and mta (Raid 1) 2 disks >1 lun for database (Raid 5) 3 disks >1 lun for logs (Raid 1) 2 disks >1 lun for quorum (Raid 1) 2 disks >Is a total of 9 disks correct for configuration of active/passive cluster? Disks have got nothing to do with LUNs. Database on three disks with RAID5 is little short of insane. You might as well just mirror them. You're only looking at one LUN for logs? Only one store? Why on earth cluster such a small machine? (Yes, I know that size is not related to business criticality but there is a broad correlation)
Mark, Thanks for the reply What do you recommend? If i have 3 database stores and data equal to 100 gbs. After reading http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb123612.aspx the Disk drive configuration listed in the website from microsoft. Says 104 spindles does that mean 104 disks? Thanks for your help! "Mark Arnold [MVP]" wrote: > On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:27:08 -0800, Roberto R > wrote: > > >Fairly new to Clustering - Some questions i am trying to find answers to > > > > > >1. On each node - do you install the Exchange installation on the local > >drive or on the san shared drives? > > Has to be on the local. > > >2. Recommendations for shared drives is > >4 LUNS > >1 lun for smtp and mta (Raid 1) 2 disks > >1 lun for database (Raid 5) 3 disks > >1 lun for logs (Raid 1) 2 disks > >1 lun for quorum (Raid 1) 2 disks > >Is a total of 9 disks correct for configuration of active/passive cluster? > > Disks have got nothing to do with LUNs. > Database on three disks with RAID5 is little short of insane. You > might as well just mirror them. > > You're only looking at one LUN for logs? Only one store? Why on earth > cluster such a small machine? (Yes, I know that size is not related to > business criticality but there is a broad correlation) >
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:04:00 -0800, Roberto R wrote: >Mark, > >Thanks for the reply > >What do you recommend? If i have 3 database stores and data equal to 100 gbs. > >After reading http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb123612.aspx > >the Disk drive configuration listed in the website from microsoft. > >Says 104 spindles does that mean 104 disks? > >Thanks for your help! > > > 104 spindles does indeed mean 104 disks. A disk only has one spindle (it's the stick of metal down the middle of the disk that the platter spins on) However, because you're going to use hardware raid it doesn't actually translate into actual real metalwork. The quorum, one of the logs (or more), queues etc. will easily go on a pair of disks so the (at least 6 spindles) that mention there will end up as two real spindles.
Mark, Still a little confusing If you look at the chart of disks it goes up to only Disk 22, in the chart do those disks mean LUN. For Example SMTP/MTA drives RAID-(0+1) array consisting of four spindles. (3 EVSs à 4 disks = 12 disks.) Does that mean i have to create 3 Raid Configurations consisting of 4 drives for 3 Virtual Servers. Thats alot of disks dont you think? "Mark Arnold [MVP]" wrote: > On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:04:00 -0800, Roberto R > wrote: > > >Mark, > > > >Thanks for the reply > > > >What do you recommend? If i have 3 database stores and data equal to 100 gbs. > > > >After reading http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb123612.aspx > > > >the Disk drive configuration listed in the website from microsoft. > > > >Says 104 spindles does that mean 104 disks? > > > >Thanks for your help! > > > > > > > 104 spindles does indeed mean 104 disks. A disk only has one spindle > (it's the stick of metal down the middle of the disk that the platter > spins on) > However, because you're going to use hardware raid it doesn't actually > translate into actual real metalwork. The quorum, one of the logs (or > more), queues etc. will easily go on a pair of disks so the (at least > 6 spindles) that mention there will end up as two real spindles. >
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:28:06 -0800, Roberto R wrote: >Mark, > >Still a little confusing >If you look at the chart of disks it goes up to only Disk 22, in the chart >do those disks mean LUN. > >For Example >SMTP/MTA drives RAID-(0+1) array consisting of four spindles. (3 EVSs × 4 >disks = 12 disks.) >Does that mean i have to create 3 Raid Configurations consisting of 4 drives >for 3 Virtual Servers. Thats alot of disks dont you think? > > > Why do you think you need 0+1 or even 1+0? Have you got the IO calcs that say you should? You're over thinking this and probably over-raiding it. If you don't have a good feel about the storage calculator and a knowledge of how many disks you need you should get someone in to sanity check it.
