By now, most of you have heard that Exchange 2007 will only be supported on x64 Hardware. That decision hinged on the impressive performance gains to be had from 64-bit's expanded access to mor...
Published Sep 08, 2006
Version 1.0
Blog Post
So, with the increase of performance to 70% on the DB luns and adding up to 50 SG's with a single DB, what happens to log performance? More specifically, is the conversion factor for allocation of LUNS between the DB and LOGS on 2K7 the same as 2K3?
If you're looking at a 1 IOP environment in 2K3 it will equate to a .3 IOP (based on your recommendations and data). Then to calculate spindle count for DB luns would be:
5000 users x 2GB Mailbox Size x 1.5 for Data compensation and growth x 2 (VRaid1)/ 300GB disk size
= 100 Total Disks (DB LUN aggregate size and VRaid1)
Factor out the VRaid1 overhead (divide by 2) and we end up with 50 Total (usable) disks for Aggregate Storage
= 15TB Total aggregate Storage
Now, in E2003 to calculate the Spindle count for LOGS we would take:
#DB spindles/10 = #LOG IOPS
then
# LOG IOPS/Disk IOP Capacity = Total # Spindles for LOG disk Group
Is this still the same in E2K7?
If you're looking at a 1 IOP environment in 2K3 it will equate to a .3 IOP (based on your recommendations and data). Then to calculate spindle count for DB luns would be:
5000 users x 2GB Mailbox Size x 1.5 for Data compensation and growth x 2 (VRaid1)/ 300GB disk size
= 100 Total Disks (DB LUN aggregate size and VRaid1)
Factor out the VRaid1 overhead (divide by 2) and we end up with 50 Total (usable) disks for Aggregate Storage
= 15TB Total aggregate Storage
Now, in E2003 to calculate the Spindle count for LOGS we would take:
#DB spindles/10 = #LOG IOPS
then
# LOG IOPS/Disk IOP Capacity = Total # Spindles for LOG disk Group
Is this still the same in E2K7?