2010-07-01 01:13 AM - edited 2015-12-18 01:34 AM
1. In the doc TR-3824 Brad writes:
If there are separate LUNs for the Exchange transaction log files and the SnapInfo directory, place
those LUNs in the same volume. Both LUNs have a similar I/O profile, allowing them to share the
same volume. For disaster recovery scenarios, having the entire log set for Exchange on the same
volume helps achieve SLAs.
Is this a "requirement" - that is, does it make a difference whether or not I generate both LUNs within the same Volume or if I give each LUN it's own volume? We find it easier to manager a 1:1 mapping of Volumes to LUNs.
2. Regarding Mount Points it says:
When creating LUNs, use volume mountpoints. This alleviates drive letter constraints when a large
number of LUNs are required.
(a) We need to create a LUN for the mountpoint, right? The mountpoint cannot sit on a physical disk (ex. C:\) which all members of the DAG own.
(b) This LUN (if needed) - can it sit within an existing Volume or do we need to create a seperate Volume? (I know this is a little connected to Question 1 above)
3. We are planning on creating a Mailbox Database for each of our remote sites which will all connect to our main datacenter. The assumption is that each Mailbox DB will be created on a seperate Volume & LUN, in order to seperate the Data Files one from the other, allowing us to maintain smaller Volumes.
(a) Can we unify all the Logs from these databases into a single Volume & LUN, taking into account that we will be using SM for Exchange.
(b) Is there any added benefit to keep more than one database on a single LUN/Volume, or is it ok to seperate them?
2011-12-11 10:18 PM
The best way to work on this is as below :
1) Create one lun for each database.
2) Create one common lun for all the logs as well as snapinfo directory.
Attached is screen shot of the lun (sommon for both snapinfo and log) for your reference.