|
|
|
date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 15:16:02 -0700,
group: microsoft.public.exchange.design
back
Re: Optimal disk setup
There are 5 73GB 15k Ultra320 SCSI disks. I have been running the Exchange
Performance Troubleshooting Analyzer at different times for the past week
because lots of users have been getting synch errors.
The analyzer says that there is some latency accessing the volume that the
TLs are on, the my Temp/Tmp folders are on the OS volume, and that the SMTP
folder is on the same volume as the Stores.
The drives came partitioned from the manufacturer, although I've noticed
that the OS volume and TL volume share the same RAID array, and the stores
have their own array.
My goal is to separate the OS/Pagefile, TEMP/TMP folders, SMTP, stores, and
TLs from each other to maximize my disk performance and take away the
bottleneck they are causing right now.
So again, 5 73GB disks, 150 mailboxes at about 700mb, and rebuilding so that
I can repartition is an option.
Thanks for the input.
"Bharat Suneja [MVP]" wrote:
> Without knowing your disk capacity/disk type/IO requirements, and limitation
> of 5 physical disks only:
> Vol 1: OS
> Vol 2 - RAID1 mirror: TLs
> Vol 3 - RAID1 mirror: Stores (STM + EDB)
> --
> Bharat Suneja
> MVP - Exchange
> www.zenprise.com
> NEW blog location:
> www.exchangepedia.com/blog
> ----------------------------------------------
>
>
> "Daniel Sommerfeld" wrote in
> message news:70AB4F87-A18C-40F4-B60E-6539A8A680DD@microsoft.com...
> >I have a server with 5 disks in it. It will be running Server 2003 Standard
> > with Exchange 2003 Enterprise. I will have 150 users with an average
> > mailbox
> > of 700mb.
> >
> > What is the best disk arrangement for this server, what type of RAID
> > arrays
> > should I run, and where should I put things like the TEMP folders, TLs,
> > and
> > EDB/STM?
>
>
>
date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 13:00:02 -0700
author: Daniel Sommerfeld
Re: Optimal disk setup
Think of it as smashing a water balloon. You press on one side, and what
happens?
5 spindles won't be enough to alleviate your issues. If you have the option
to buy more spindles, then go for it. If not, then optimize for resilience
and let your users know they'll be in for more of the delays as time passes.
The reason I say this is because Exchange has several types of I/O
signatures that are not all conducive to each other's good health and
performance. For example, the log files are typically sequential write/light
read while the SMTP queues tend to be more write heavy, but still needs some
read performance. Stores tend to be read heavy and medium on writes but can
vary widely during sampling intervals; tends to be best measured over time
vs. short intervals.
Anti-virus applications that are Exchange aware can put strain on the disk
as well as they expand files for scanning in temp folders of their own.
Conversions of file types can impact the disk, and the list goes on.
If you can confirm that you have disk bottlenecks, then you'll have a solid
answer. Take a look a the performance guides for Exchange on Microsoft's
site for detailed information.
"Daniel Sommerfeld" wrote in
message news:954B353D-56EC-499E-B3EC-490575C20F6B@microsoft.com...
> There are 5 73GB 15k Ultra320 SCSI disks. I have been running the Exchange
> Performance Troubleshooting Analyzer at different times for the past week
> because lots of users have been getting synch errors.
> The analyzer says that there is some latency accessing the volume that the
> TLs are on, the my Temp/Tmp folders are on the OS volume, and that the
> SMTP
> folder is on the same volume as the Stores.
> The drives came partitioned from the manufacturer, although I've noticed
> that the OS volume and TL volume share the same RAID array, and the stores
> have their own array.
>
> My goal is to separate the OS/Pagefile, TEMP/TMP folders, SMTP, stores,
> and
> TLs from each other to maximize my disk performance and take away the
> bottleneck they are causing right now.
>
> So again, 5 73GB disks, 150 mailboxes at about 700mb, and rebuilding so
> that
> I can repartition is an option.
>
> Thanks for the input.
>
> "Bharat Suneja [MVP]" wrote:
>
>> Without knowing your disk capacity/disk type/IO requirements, and
>> limitation
>> of 5 physical disks only:
>> Vol 1: OS
>> Vol 2 - RAID1 mirror: TLs
>> Vol 3 - RAID1 mirror: Stores (STM + EDB)
>> --
>> Bharat Suneja
>> MVP - Exchange
>> www.zenprise.com
>> NEW blog location:
>> www.exchangepedia.com/blog
>> ----------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> "Daniel Sommerfeld" wrote in
>> message news:70AB4F87-A18C-40F4-B60E-6539A8A680DD@microsoft.com...
>> >I have a server with 5 disks in it. It will be running Server 2003
>> >Standard
>> > with Exchange 2003 Enterprise. I will have 150 users with an average
>> > mailbox
>> > of 700mb.
>> >
>> > What is the best disk arrangement for this server, what type of RAID
>> > arrays
>> > should I run, and where should I put things like the TEMP folders, TLs,
>> > and
>> > EDB/STM?
>>
>>
>>
date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 22:26:17 -0400
author: Al Mulnick
|
|
