I am preparing to migrate from Exchange 2003 to 2010 with a current mailbox count of 300 and a 70GB DB.
My primary mailbox server will have 6 HD's:
OS - RAID1 (148GB 15krpm SAS)
DB - RAID1 (600GB 15krpm SAS)
Recovery/Logs - RAID1 (1TB 7.2krpm SAS)
There will be 4 DAG's to separate mailbox roles. There will be an active and passive DAG on the primary server on the DB LUN.
The Recover/Log's LUN will have all of the log files as well as space to load a Backup Exec Recovery LUN if necessary.
I will also have a secondary mailbox server in the same site that will have the same HD configuration. There will only be a passive DAG DB on that server.
Does anyone see a flaw in this design? My Sr. Sys Admin belives it is risky to not have a hotspare for the mailbox DB LUN's. He also wants to put the log files on a faster rpm disk (15krpm). I don't believe this is necessary. If we lose an HD in the DB LUN we'll be ok. Worse case scenario is that we lose 2 HD's and have to failover to the secondary server.
I also read that 2010 has changed a lot of things in the way the IOPS work for logging. There is less demand and they even say that we can store logs and DB on the same LUN. I doubt a 7.2krpm SAS HD will cause Exchange to be that much slower than 15krpm SAS HD's.
Is this a solid configuration with regards to storage on Exchange 2010 or am I not following "best practices" with what other admins are doing?
I think my sys admin is going too far with the need for a hotspare and requiring faster log LUNs.