Microsoft Virtualization Discussions

Re: What do you think of this spec of SAN?

Hi Wei,

I actually couldn't find any up-to-date doc describing Exchange 2003 best practices.

This one is from Nov 2006 & actually doesn't recommend separate aggregates for logs:

http://media.netapp.com/documents/tr-3350.pdf

Having said that, personally I would carefully read the TR-3578 from Brad Garvey - although written for Exchange 2007, some recommendations are applicable for 2003 as well:

http://media.netapp.com/documents/tr-3578.pdf

Page 11 gives nice view on single vs. two aggregates dilemma.

Regards,
Radek

Re: What do you think of this spec of SAN?

Hi Radek,

You are right. TR-3578 should be a good reference for Exchange 2003 as well. Separating database and logs is a "good to do", not "must do".

Regards,

Wei

Highlighted

Re: What do you think of this spec of SAN?

Thank you.

I've just now had a meeting with a Netapp reseller who is 100% confident that a fully loaded 2040 with an additional shelf populated with 16 discs (out of 28) will suffice for our IO quite easily.

Thanks again for the pointers.  Without tweaking Exchange I think we'll benefit from a SAN anyway in that currently we're using local storage for Exchange with only a 512MB cache.  The 2040 comes with 4GB so this will surely help in itsself let alone the fact there are more spindles to go at!

Try the new BETA Support Site!
Beta Support Site
Forums