In recent times, I have been hearing that the current best practice for Exchange database to storage group design is to utilize all stroage group first and then add more databases. (I get this information by way of an Exchange Ranger). I also read this on page 323 in "Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 - Tony Redmond's Guide to Successful Implementation" book, in the 3rd paragraph, it states the Microsoft Best Practice for Exchange 2003 is to have one database per storage group. I need to reference an offical Microsoft document that spells this revised Best Practice in database design. However, I cannot find it anywhere. Any assistance for Microsoft reference material on this best practice would be appreciated. Regards, Leonard Lee
The Exchange 2003 recommendation: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/890699 Same as for Exchange 2007: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb331954.aspx This configuration is enforced if you implement things like CCR, etc. -- Neil Hobson Exchange MVP http://www.msexchange.org/Neil_Hobson/ http://www.msexchangeblog.com "Leonard Lee" wrote in message news:230EC8F8-F2A8-40F7-BF22-C506F690E7F9@microsoft.com... > In recent times, I have been hearing that the current best practice for > Exchange database to storage group design is to utilize all stroage group > first and then add more databases. (I get this information by way of an > Exchange Ranger). > > I also read this on page 323 in "Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 - Tony > Redmond's Guide to Successful Implementation" book, in the 3rd paragraph, > it > states the Microsoft Best Practice for Exchange 2003 is to have one > database > per storage group. > > I need to reference an offical Microsoft document that spells this revised > Best Practice in database design. However, I cannot find it anywhere. > Any > assistance for Microsoft reference material on this best practice would be > appreciated. > > Regards, > Leonard Lee >
As Neil states you have to have a 1 to 1 contention if using LCR/CCR. It is interesting to note however that some storage vendors in the Microsoft ERSP 2.0 program are only using this for CCR implementation. Oliver
It is also enforced in SCR in Service Pack 1. As an aside, using 1 DB per SG gives you more aggregate checkpoint depth. The higher the checkpoint depth the more likely that the dirty page will remain in memory longer, which means it can be updated multiple times before being flushed to disk. Here's an example: 1 SG with 5 databases and 1000 total mailboxes (200 mailboxes per database); Checkpoint depth= 20MB/1000 = .02 5 SGs with 1 database in each and 1000 total mailboxes (200 mailboxes per SG); Checkpoint depth per SG is 20MB/200 = .1 In this example, you have an increase factor of 5 when you have 1 DB per SG vs. multiple DBs in a single SG. -- Regards, Scott Schnoll Microsoft Corporation This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. Please do not send email directly to this alias. This alias is for newsgroup purposes only. "Oliver Moazzezi [MVP]" wrote in message news:uDFCCbYHIHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > As Neil states you have to have a 1 to 1 contention if using LCR/CCR. > > It is interesting to note however that some storage vendors in the > Microsoft ERSP 2.0 program are only using this for CCR implementation. > > Oliver > > >
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 12:53:09 +0100, "Scott Schnoll [MSFT]" wrote: >It is also enforced in SCR in Service Pack 1. As an aside, using 1 DB per >SG gives you more aggregate checkpoint depth. The higher the checkpoint >depth the more likely that the dirty page will remain in memory longer, >which means it can be updated multiple times before being flushed to disk. >Here's an example: > >1 SG with 5 databases and 1000 total mailboxes (200 mailboxes per database); >Checkpoint depth= 20MB/1000 = .02 >5 SGs with 1 database in each and 1000 total mailboxes (200 mailboxes per >SG); Checkpoint depth per SG is 20MB/200 = .1 > >In this example, you have an increase factor of 5 when you have 1 DB per SG >vs. multiple DBs in a single SG. It makes restores so much cleaner as well.
Yes Microsoft is recommending one DB per SG. There are reasons related to LCR/CCR also I recommend reading following white papers to get more clear info http://smtp25.blogspot.com/2007/11/microsoft-certified-technology.html download DepLarge, DepComp and Depsimple, these are the best free (-: white papers I have seen so far regards oz Oz Ozugurlu Systems Engineer MCSE 2003| M+| S+ MCDST | Security+|Project+ Telnet25@Gmail.com http://smtp25.blogspot.com (Blog) "Leonard Lee" wrote in message news:230EC8F8-F2A8-40F7-BF22-C506F690E7F9@microsoft.com... > In recent times, I have been hearing that the current best practice for > Exchange database to storage group design is to utilize all stroage group > first and then add more databases. (I get this information by way of an > Exchange Ranger). > > I also read this on page 323 in "Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 - Tony > Redmond's Guide to Successful Implementation" book, in the 3rd paragraph, > it > states the Microsoft Best Practice for Exchange 2003 is to have one > database > per storage group. > > I need to reference an offical Microsoft document that spells this revised > Best Practice in database design. However, I cannot find it anywhere. > Any > assistance for Microsoft reference material on this best practice would be > appreciated. > > Regards, > Leonard Lee >
