Re: SANS and Exchange
You're confusing SAN with NAS. SAN provides access to LUNs via block mode
protocols like FCP or iSCSI. NAS provides files via file level protocols
like CIFS or NFS.
Microsoft recommends SAN or directly attached storage (DAS). Microsoft does
not recommend, or support for that matter, NAS for Exchange 2000 and 2003.
See: "If access to a disk resource requires that a share be mapped, or if
the disk resource appears as a remote server by means of a Universal Naming
Convention (UNC) path (for example, \\servername\sharename) on the network,
the disk storage system is not supported as a location for Exchange Server
databases. "
in:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/317173/en-us
Many SAN devices can present both LUNs via block level protocols and file
shares via file level protocols from the same pool of disk (not the same
data however). You should carve out LUNs and present them to your exchange
server via block level protocols.
As you go down this route, remember that a SAN is not a panecea for storage
problems. In fact, if you're not careful a SAN can introduce new problems
like comingling. From a performance perspective, the same rules apply for
SAN as they do for DAS. You'll want to provide physical seperation for the
log spindles, and ensure you have enough spindle count to support the load
you will be placing upon your storage subsystem.
"Jonathan Zaldivar" wrote in message
news:70653C69-0E13-43CC-B3DB-47BD00D74AB3@microsoft.com...
>I would like to know if there was any latency or network slowness if I move
>the Exchange database (priv and pub) into a SAN with just a mapped network
>drive while the rest of the files remain in the Exchange server. What is
>the best practice to utilize the big space in a new SANS server? Thank you
>in advance.
>
date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 11:25:59 -0800
author: John Fullbright fjohn@donotspamnetappdotcom
