Why Experts Exchange?

Experts Exchange always has the answer, or at the least points me in the correct direction! It is like having another employee that is extremely experienced.

Jim Murphy
Programmer at Smart IT Solutions

When asked, what has been your best career decision?

Deciding to stick with EE.

Mohamed Asif
Technical Department Head

Being involved with EE helped me to grow personally and professionally.

Carl Webster
CTP, Sr Infrastructure Consultant
Ask ANY Question

Connect with Certified Experts to gain insight and support on specific technology challenges including:

Professional Opinions
Ask a Question
Did You Know?

We've partnered with two important charities to provide clean water and computer science education to those who need it most. READ MORE

troubleshooting Question

Exchange 2010 single database vs multiple databases

Avatar of Mfinch
MfinchFlag for United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland asked on
22 Comments1 Solution5324 ViewsLast Modified:
My query is one to do with the creation of a single database vs multiple databases in relation to my disk subsystem. I have installed a new iSCSI SAN on which I plan to install an Exchange 2010 virtual machine and migrate all mailboxes from an existing Exchange 2007 server. Unfortunately, I am limited with my disk subsystem in the fact that I only have a single raid 5 array comprising of 7 X 15k SAS disks to house the entire system. This being the case, I feel it is entirely pointless to separate the database(s) and log file(s) onto different virtual disks on the same disk array as this will not provide any performance benefit.

As I have no choice but to have the database(s) and log(s) on the same raid array, my question as mentioned is regarding the creation of a single database vs multiple databases. I am unsure if there is any benefit to creating multiple databases in this scenario and worried it could actually decrease performance. The only benefit I can think of for creating multiple databases is the fact that online defragmentation could complete much quicker for each DB. Our current single DB is around 95GB and the online defrag never has time to complete leaving the performance less than optimal.


Avatar of XtremeKimo

Our community of experts have been thoroughly vetted for their expertise and industry experience.

This problem has been solved!
Unlock 1 Answer and 22 Comments.
See Answers