<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Exchange 2010 with V-Series in Data Protection</title>
    <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/Exchange-2010-with-V-Series/m-p/53701#M7346</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;My Experience is, that Exchange is highly overrated in terms of performance needs.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;And when you have a V32xx with some sophisticated Storagesystem in the backend, it should easily outperform the "dumb" DS-shelfs from NetApp, correct?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Peter&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Follow these TR as Best practice guidelines, they are also valid for V-Series with some additional tought pt into it:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="http://www.netapp.com/us/library/technical-reports/tr-3730.html" title="http://www.netapp.com/us/library/technical-reports/tr-3730.html" target="_blank"&gt;http://www.netapp.com/us/library/technical-reports/tr-3730.html&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A class="active_link" href="http://www.netapp.com/us/library/technical-reports/tr-3565.html" title="http://www.netapp.com/us/library/technical-reports/tr-3565.html" target="_blank"&gt;http://www.netapp.com/us/library/technical-reports/tr-3565.html&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;and here a 12'000 mailbox version:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A class="active_link" href="http://www.netapp.com/us/library/technical-reports/tr-esrp-netapp-fas3140-mailbox-resiliency-fc-storage-solution.html" title="http://www.netapp.com/us/library/technical-reports/tr-esrp-netapp-fas3140-mailbox-resiliency-fc-storage-solution.html" target="_blank"&gt;http://www.netapp.com/us/library/technical-reports/tr-esrp-netapp-fas3140-mailbox-resiliency-fc-storage-solution.html&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:50:53 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>peter_lehmann</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2012-02-15T12:50:53Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Exchange 2010 with V-Series</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/Exchange-2010-with-V-Series/m-p/53696#M7345</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hello&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Has anyone deployed an Exchange 2010 solution (5000 users +) on V32xx with any type of 3rd party storage behind the V-series ?&amp;nbsp; I am interested to see performance differences to FAS, and also how Exchange has been set up.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Dave&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2025 06:34:40 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/Exchange-2010-with-V-Series/m-p/53696#M7345</guid>
      <dc:creator>druddle00</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-05T06:34:40Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Exchange 2010 with V-Series</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/Exchange-2010-with-V-Series/m-p/53701#M7346</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;My Experience is, that Exchange is highly overrated in terms of performance needs.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;And when you have a V32xx with some sophisticated Storagesystem in the backend, it should easily outperform the "dumb" DS-shelfs from NetApp, correct?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Peter&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Follow these TR as Best practice guidelines, they are also valid for V-Series with some additional tought pt into it:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="http://www.netapp.com/us/library/technical-reports/tr-3730.html" title="http://www.netapp.com/us/library/technical-reports/tr-3730.html" target="_blank"&gt;http://www.netapp.com/us/library/technical-reports/tr-3730.html&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A class="active_link" href="http://www.netapp.com/us/library/technical-reports/tr-3565.html" title="http://www.netapp.com/us/library/technical-reports/tr-3565.html" target="_blank"&gt;http://www.netapp.com/us/library/technical-reports/tr-3565.html&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;and here a 12'000 mailbox version:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A class="active_link" href="http://www.netapp.com/us/library/technical-reports/tr-esrp-netapp-fas3140-mailbox-resiliency-fc-storage-solution.html" title="http://www.netapp.com/us/library/technical-reports/tr-esrp-netapp-fas3140-mailbox-resiliency-fc-storage-solution.html" target="_blank"&gt;http://www.netapp.com/us/library/technical-reports/tr-esrp-netapp-fas3140-mailbox-resiliency-fc-storage-solution.html&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:50:53 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/Exchange-2010-with-V-Series/m-p/53701#M7346</guid>
      <dc:creator>peter_lehmann</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-02-15T12:50:53Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Exchange 2010 with V-Series</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/Exchange-2010-with-V-Series/m-p/53705#M7347</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;We are seeing some serious performance issues with using SATA drives. We realize that SATA in itself is a whole different problem, but we still should be hitting some much higher IO numbers than we currently are able to.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;What is everyone doing about the 2010 requirements for 256k stripe size? Is there any recourse for Netapp storage, SATA or SAS?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2012 22:56:12 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/Exchange-2010-with-V-Series/m-p/53705#M7347</guid>
      <dc:creator>chad_petrie</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-04-04T22:56:12Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

