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.
Managing Active Directory does not always have to be complicated. If you are spending more time trying instead of doing, then it's time to look at something else. For nearly 20 years, AD admins around the world have used one tool for day-to-day AD management: Hyena. Discover why
In this video we show how to create an Address List in Exchange 2013. We show this process by using the Exchange Admin Center.
Log into Exchange Admin Center.: First we need to log into the Exchange Admin Center.
Navigate to the Organization >> Ad…