tomcurrier
asked on
Number of HD for Exchange Server and SAS vs SATA
I want to move my Exchange from an older box to a newer box. I have 60 users with about half in remote offices with easy access to Exchange through a subnet.
My new box is an HP Proliant DL180 G6. It came with two 146 GB SAS drives. I'll probably go from Server 2003/Exchange 2003 to Server 2008/Exchange 2008 since I have the software. My current Exchange Information Store totals only about 35 GB. I think the new hardware is more than adequate.
My question is how many more HD should I buy. I'm thinking about 4 more if I buy the SAS 146 GB, but that would cost me about $1200. I've heard I should separate the OS, the logging, and the rest of the Exchange on different hard drives. Although we have done just fine for years with only 3 HD in a RAID. We are pretty small and I don't want to be unnecessarily fancy with this new box, but I certainly want something reliable, stable, and reasonably quick.
Thanks in advance for your help.
My new box is an HP Proliant DL180 G6. It came with two 146 GB SAS drives. I'll probably go from Server 2003/Exchange 2003 to Server 2008/Exchange 2008 since I have the software. My current Exchange Information Store totals only about 35 GB. I think the new hardware is more than adequate.
My question is how many more HD should I buy. I'm thinking about 4 more if I buy the SAS 146 GB, but that would cost me about $1200. I've heard I should separate the OS, the logging, and the rest of the Exchange on different hard drives. Although we have done just fine for years with only 3 HD in a RAID. We are pretty small and I don't want to be unnecessarily fancy with this new box, but I certainly want something reliable, stable, and reasonably quick.
Thanks in advance for your help.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
DBrookfield
The benefit of RAID 10 here is more space 292 Gb and it's more redundant and faster. BUt RAID 5 would work,
RAID 10 would not yield more space, it would actually take away a drives worth of space if you look at it that way.
RAID 5: 3 drives, ~275 usable
RAID 10: 4 drives ~290 usable
There would be a performance gain with RAID 10, it's really a question of how much the company is willing to invest in the project.
RAID 5: 3 drives, ~275 usable
RAID 10: 4 drives ~290 usable
There would be a performance gain with RAID 10, it's really a question of how much the company is willing to invest in the project.
I'm sorry I was reading your commenbt you said 275Gb I ddin't bother doing teh calculation. TBH space isn't the issue, it's performance and more importantly IMHO redundancy.
ASKER
Guys, this was quite helpful. Thank you. It even spurred me to learn the difference between RAID 5 and 10 !!
It's possible the DL 180 has only 4 GIG memory, not 8. I'll have to check. However, we have been running ES with only 1 GIG memory, so hopefully 4 will work ok for us?? Obviously, I can easily add more if really needed.
It's possible the DL 180 has only 4 GIG memory, not 8. I'll have to check. However, we have been running ES with only 1 GIG memory, so hopefully 4 will work ok for us?? Obviously, I can easily add more if really needed.