better performace if exchange/files on different arrays? > Small Business Server Support Forum

Unanswered Active Topics

Forums Search

Subject: better performace if exchange/files on different arrays?

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Author

Messages

Vince Ogne User is Offline

United States
Member since
9/23/2008

Registered Users
Posts: 1

9/23/2008 09:02 PM
I have spec'd out a new server which will have 8 cores, 8GB RAM and 6x250GB SATA drives (RAID5 or RAID10). I also own a Winchester 12 disk SAS array with 15k drives that I would also like to use. My question is what would be the fastest configuration given this hardware? Should I put the OS and file serving on the internal SATA drives and put the Exchange store on the external array? Or would it be best to keep everything on the internal SATA drives? This server will support 50+ users accessing Exchange and file serving consistantly all day. No databases or large files, just average sized office documents (mostly under 10MB) but with frequent activity. Thanks in advance for any advice you can give.

Eriq Neale User is Offline

Texas, USA
Member since
5/3/2005

Microsoft MVP
Posts: 2117

9/23/2008 11:29 PM
Exchange and other database follks will tell you that best practice for disk allocation is to separate the transaction logs and the datbase files onto separate "spindles" for performance. In smaller envirionments, it's not that big of a deal, but I just built a box for a client who's rolling out a new Great Plains install, and the standalone SQL box has the OS on one array, the SQL databases on another array, the SQL transaction logs on a third, and the backup and scratch files on a fourth. Yes, four different arrays on the box, but disk performance is NOT going to be an issue for them. I've started considering the following for higher-end servers I'm putting our for my clients: OS on a RAID1 array with its own dedicated hot spare (usually the smallest disks I can get from the vendor) Data on a separate RAID 5 array with one or more dedicated hot spares (depends on the amount of storage needed to determine what siize and number of disks I'll use in the array) If Exchange is going to be heavily accessed, I'll put it on its own RAID 5 array. Some might not agree with this approach, but it's been working well for us. HTH... -Eriq

Eriq Neale - Small Business Specialist, SBS MVP, Mac Guru EON Consulting LLC www.eonconsulting.net Lead Author of Windows Small Business Server 2008 Unleashed In bookstores December 10, available for pre-order now Listen to eOnCall at AIRtunZ or visit www.eoncall.com.

Alan Bailey User is Offline

United Kingdom
Member since
12/8/2007

Registered Users
Posts: 58

9/24/2008 06:23 AM
Eriq, RAID1 + RAID5 + hotspare (all 15K SAS) is working well on the last server I installed. I considered many options given the number of spindles I had available and it seemed to be the best compromise. If Dell still fitted alarms to their PERC adapters I wouldn't have bothered with the hotspare. Vince, as far as I can tell even 50 users is a very small user base for exchange. Personally I'd save some money on the processors and memory and use it to put something better than SATA drives in the server. The last server I bought (PE2900) will handle upto 10 spindles; if you need more than that SBS probably isn't the right product.

Eriq Neale User is Offline

Texas, USA
Member since
5/3/2005

Microsoft MVP
Posts: 2117

9/25/2008 12:54 PM
ALan - Alarm or not (and that's an entirely different project), I always add a hot spare. I'm very uncomfortable running even just a couple of hours without full fault tolerance when a drive fails. And yes, I'd also recommend trading out slower CPU and smaller RAM for the better hard drives. Likely going to see more benefit from the disk than the CPU/RAM in that situation. -Eriq

Eriq Neale - Small Business Specialist, SBS MVP, Mac Guru EON Consulting LLC www.eonconsulting.net Lead Author of Windows Small Business Server 2008 Unleashed In bookstores December 10, available for pre-order now Listen to eOnCall at AIRtunZ or visit www.eoncall.com.

william warren User is Offline

United States
Member since
12/8/2005

Registered Users
Posts: 640

9/26/2008 05:51 AM
when you say separate arrays are you putting each array on it's own controller?

Registered Microsoft Partner

Eriq Neale User is Offline

Texas, USA
Member since
5/3/2005

Microsoft MVP
Posts: 2117

9/30/2008 01:36 AM
you could achieve potentially better performance with multiple controllers, but it's less of an issue with SCSI/SAS than SATA. But I'm generally doing multiple arrays on the same controller. -Eriq

Eriq Neale - Small Business Specialist, SBS MVP, Mac Guru EON Consulting LLC www.eonconsulting.net Lead Author of Windows Small Business Server 2008 Unleashed In bookstores December 10, available for pre-order now Listen to eOnCall at AIRtunZ or visit www.eoncall.com.

Alan Bailey User is Offline

United Kingdom
Member since
12/8/2007

Registered Users
Posts: 58

9/30/2008 06:14 AM
Eriq, I've just realised that I have a copy of your book. It was of help when I first made the shift to SBS from a more traditional Windows server environment. I'd agree that multiple controllers could offer better performance, but I can't see that it matters whether you're running SCSI, SAS or SATA (PATA is a different matter). Ignoring available spindle speeds SAS and SATA are fairly similar. This all started with the OP wanting to know how to best use an available external 15K SAS array alongside a SATA based server. Given that option (and limited information) I’d install everything on the 15K SAS array except for basic file serving. Why someone would spec a server with SATA drives and then want to plug an external SAS array into it is another matter.

You are not authorized to post a reply.