<?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 Exchange 2010 Design Questions in Data Protection</title>
    <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/Exchange-2010-Design-Questions/m-p/66932#M7677</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;1.&lt;/STRONG&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; In the doc TR-3824 Brad writes:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="padding-left: 60px;"&gt;&lt;EM&gt;If there are separate LUNs for the Exchange transaction log files and the SnapInfo directory, place &lt;BR /&gt;those LUNs in the same volume. Both LUNs have a similar I/O profile, allowing them to share the &lt;BR /&gt;same volume. For disaster recovery scenarios, having the entire log set for Exchange on the same &lt;BR /&gt;volume helps achieve SLAs.&lt;/EM&gt; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="padding-left: 30px;"&gt;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.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;2.&lt;/STRONG&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Regarding Mount Points it says:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="padding-left: 60px;"&gt;&lt;EM&gt;When creating LUNs, use volume mountpoints. This alleviates drive letter constraints when a large &lt;BR /&gt;number of LUNs are required.&lt;/EM&gt; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="padding-left: 30px;"&gt;(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. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="padding-left: 30px;"&gt;(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)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;3.&lt;/STRONG&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; 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 &amp;amp; LUN, in order to seperate the Data Files one from the other, allowing us to maintain smaller Volumes.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="padding-left: 30px;"&gt;(a) Can we unify all the Logs from these databases into a single Volume &amp;amp; LUN, taking into account that we will be using SM for Exchange.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="padding-left: 30px;"&gt;(b) Is there any added benefit to keep more than one database on a single LUN/Volume, or is it ok to seperate them?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Reuvy!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2025 07:12:55 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>israelmmi</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2025-06-05T07:12:55Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Exchange 2010 Design Questions</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/Exchange-2010-Design-Questions/m-p/66932#M7677</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;1.&lt;/STRONG&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; In the doc TR-3824 Brad writes:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="padding-left: 60px;"&gt;&lt;EM&gt;If there are separate LUNs for the Exchange transaction log files and the SnapInfo directory, place &lt;BR /&gt;those LUNs in the same volume. Both LUNs have a similar I/O profile, allowing them to share the &lt;BR /&gt;same volume. For disaster recovery scenarios, having the entire log set for Exchange on the same &lt;BR /&gt;volume helps achieve SLAs.&lt;/EM&gt; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="padding-left: 30px;"&gt;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.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;2.&lt;/STRONG&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Regarding Mount Points it says:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="padding-left: 60px;"&gt;&lt;EM&gt;When creating LUNs, use volume mountpoints. This alleviates drive letter constraints when a large &lt;BR /&gt;number of LUNs are required.&lt;/EM&gt; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="padding-left: 30px;"&gt;(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. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="padding-left: 30px;"&gt;(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)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;3.&lt;/STRONG&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; 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 &amp;amp; LUN, in order to seperate the Data Files one from the other, allowing us to maintain smaller Volumes.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="padding-left: 30px;"&gt;(a) Can we unify all the Logs from these databases into a single Volume &amp;amp; LUN, taking into account that we will be using SM for Exchange.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="padding-left: 30px;"&gt;(b) Is there any added benefit to keep more than one database on a single LUN/Volume, or is it ok to seperate them?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Reuvy!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2025 07:12:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/Exchange-2010-Design-Questions/m-p/66932#M7677</guid>
      <dc:creator>israelmmi</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-05T07:12:55Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Exchange 2010 Design Questions</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/Exchange-2010-Design-Questions/m-p/66937#M7678</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Dear Reuvy,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The best way to work on this is as below :&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;1) Create one lun for each database.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2) Create one common lun for all the logs as well as snapinfo directory.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Attached is screen shot of the lun (sommon for both snapinfo and log) for your reference.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Bhanoji.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Dec 2011 06:18:29 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/Exchange-2010-Design-Questions/m-p/66937#M7678</guid>
      <dc:creator>bhanojiisit</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-12-12T06:18:29Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

