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?
Thanks,
Reuvy!
