Thin-provisioned LUNs for MS Exchange - Better performance?

[pedro_rocha]

Hello,

Does anyone know why TR-4681 (Best Practices Guide for Microsoft Exchange Server Using NetApp SnapCenter) recommends the following?

"For optimal storage performance, NetApp recommends thin provisioning and having at least 10% free space available in an aggregate hosting Exchange data."

Can someone explain why there is better performance with thin-provisioned LUNs? How better?

Regards,

Pedro Rocha

[SpindleNinja · Accepted solution]

The 10% thing is a WAFL normal. 

The thin provisioning part...    I don't see now how it would make a difference in just performance in the ONTAP world.   It's been asked before too.  https://community.netapp.com/t5/FAS-and-V-Series-Storage-Systems-Discussions/LUN-ThinProvisioning-performance/td-p/11448  

My only thought it by " storage performance"  they mean storage efficiency.  

[Ontapforrum]

Agree with SpindleNinja.

I think from NetApp storage side, whether it is THICK or THIN it has no bearing on storage performance (THICK simply ensures the Volume is given it's 'space' up front logically that's it or literally just for accounting purpose) it's all simply virtualized. Therefore, from Storage Performance point-of-view there is absolutely no difference. However, what it may be trying to say is that - THIN brings 'Storage efficiency' . Just like SERVER side resources such as CPU/Memory/Network can be "oversubscribed", in the same manner Storage side resources can be oversubscribed using THIN provisioning on the basis of the understanding that no system can run at 100% at all time.

However, with THIN you have to ensure (keep an eye)  the underline aggregate has enough free space to cater to mission ctirical databases that cannot afford to go offline.

Thanks!

[pedro_rocha]

Thanks for the answer and reference.

Pedro Rocha