ML
    • Recent
    • Categories
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    Installing Exchange

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved IT Discussion
    exchange
    51 Posts 10 Posters 9.8k Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • DashrenderD
      Dashrender @scottalanmiller
      last edited by

      @scottalanmiller said:

      I lived for nearly a decade with only 100MB for email. Honestly, I could function with 200MB pretty easily.

      So can I - assuming I have cloud storage for files and things I use from anywhere.

      scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • scottalanmillerS
        scottalanmiller @Dashrender
        last edited by

        @Dashrender said:

        @scottalanmiller said:

        I lived for nearly a decade with only 100MB for email. Honestly, I could function with 200MB pretty easily.

        So can I - assuming I have cloud storage for files and things I use from anywhere.

        Even without that...

        DashrenderD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • DashrenderD
          Dashrender @scottalanmiller
          last edited by

          @scottalanmiller said:

          @Dashrender said:

          @scottalanmiller said:

          I lived for nearly a decade with only 100MB for email. Honestly, I could function with 200MB pretty easily.

          So can I - assuming I have cloud storage for files and things I use from anywhere.

          Even without that...

          You then either never need any tools, or you know where you can acquire them without the need for you to store them someplace yourself.

          scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • scottalanmillerS
            scottalanmiller @Dashrender
            last edited by

            @Dashrender said:

            @scottalanmiller said:

            @Dashrender said:

            @scottalanmiller said:

            I lived for nearly a decade with only 100MB for email. Honestly, I could function with 200MB pretty easily.

            So can I - assuming I have cloud storage for files and things I use from anywhere.

            Even without that...

            You then either never need any tools, or you know where you can acquire them without the need for you to store them someplace yourself.

            I rarely need tools but I sure have never stored tools in my email.

            DashrenderD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • DashrenderD
              Dashrender @scottalanmiller
              last edited by

              @scottalanmiller said:

              @Dashrender said:

              @scottalanmiller said:

              @Dashrender said:

              @scottalanmiller said:

              I lived for nearly a decade with only 100MB for email. Honestly, I could function with 200MB pretty easily.

              So can I - assuming I have cloud storage for files and things I use from anywhere.

              Even without that...

              You then either never need any tools, or you know where you can acquire them without the need for you to store them someplace yourself.

              I rarely need tools but I sure have never stored tools in my email.

              That's an old habit of mine, long before cloud storage was a normal thing. While I do have around 1 GB of email - I'm sure I could delete 90%+ and it really wouldn't matter.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • scottalanmillerS
                scottalanmiller
                last edited by

                What kind of tools do you keep in there? For tools, if they were not available online, it seems like FTP or HTTP would be good, too.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • DashrenderD
                  Dashrender
                  last edited by

                  I was looking over the options I put into the MS worksheet. I didn't change my level 4 users from 1 GB to 200 MB. After doing so, the sheet now says I should use one DB.

                  But I still don't know what Database and Log Configuration / Server vs DB and Log Volume Design / Server is?
                  0_1459261691723_exchange1.JPG

                  At my current listed maxes
                  6 users max 10 GB
                  14 users max 5 GB
                  65 users max 200 MB
                  Max total = 143 GB

                  So I more or less know where the left side numbers are coming from, where are the right side coming from? Is the additional size for a restore LUN? The 70 or so GB isn't enough to restore the DB into, assuming it's maxed out.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • DashrenderD
                    Dashrender
                    last edited by

                    The storage design tab definitely seems antiquated as well. It does have the JBOD options that MS recommends when using DAGs, but when assuming bare metal install:
                    DB - RAID 1, two drives
                    Logs - RAID 1, two drives
                    Restore - RAID 5, three drives - WTF MS? are you really expecting me to use SSD?

                    So the design is 7 drives.

                    As for a VM situation - the worksheet doesn't really seem to have any suggestions.

                    0_1459262251928_storage1.JPG

                    0_1459262256625_storage2.JPG

                    0_1459262260337_storage3.JPG

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • scottalanmillerS
                      scottalanmiller
                      last edited by

                      It's their recommendations assuming you were cutting big time corners from 1998. I'm not kidding, that's where those recommendations come from.

                      DashrenderD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • DashrenderD
                        Dashrender @scottalanmiller
                        last edited by

                        @scottalanmiller said:

                        It's their recommendations assuming you were cutting big time corners from 1998. I'm not kidding, that's where those recommendations come from.

                        yeah - this tool is damn near useless!

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • nadnerBN
                          nadnerB
                          last edited by

                          Well, you can have every user in their own database if you really wanted to. That would be horrid but you COULD do it.

                          IMO, you seem to have a small exchange server so one database for the users is enough. If you are into it, a seperate one for the archives.

                          I would also have these drives:

                          • OS
                          • mailbox database
                          • logs
                          • archive database (if you're doing that)

                          I think I'm probably repeating what's already been said.

                          DashrenderD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • DashrenderD
                            Dashrender @nadnerB
                            last edited by

                            @nadnerB said:

                            Well, you can have every user in their own database if you really wanted to. That would be horrid but you COULD do it.

                            i could only do that if I bought Enterprise edition - and that would be just crazy 😛

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • scottalanmillerS
                              scottalanmiller
                              last edited by

                              The concept of splitting the database and logs is based on the antiquated thought that no one could possibly afford RAID 10 for the database and had to cut corners and get RAID 5. If you are not using RAID 5 on spinning disks, then your logs do not get split from the database. They perform better being on the same array, not two different ones.

                              DashrenderD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                              • DashrenderD
                                Dashrender @scottalanmiller
                                last edited by

                                @scottalanmiller said:

                                The concept of splitting the database and logs is based on the antiquated thought that no one could possibly afford RAID 10 for the database and had to cut corners and get RAID 5. If you are not using RAID 5 on spinning disks, then your logs do not get split from the database. They perform better being on the same array, not two different ones.

                                So in my case, they aren't suggesting RAID 5, because I don't have a storage need? LOL - yeah this tool really is just old! and nearly useless!

                                travisdh1T scottalanmillerS 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • travisdh1T
                                  travisdh1 @Dashrender
                                  last edited by

                                  @Dashrender said:

                                  @scottalanmiller said:

                                  The concept of splitting the database and logs is based on the antiquated thought that no one could possibly afford RAID 10 for the database and had to cut corners and get RAID 5. If you are not using RAID 5 on spinning disks, then your logs do not get split from the database. They perform better being on the same array, not two different ones.

                                  So in my case, they aren't suggesting RAID 5, because I don't have a storage need? LOL - yeah this tool really is just old! and nearly useless!

                                  uhm..... I'd say drop the nearly on nearly useless.

                                  DashrenderD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                  • DashrenderD
                                    Dashrender @travisdh1
                                    last edited by

                                    @travisdh1 said:

                                    @Dashrender said:

                                    @scottalanmiller said:

                                    The concept of splitting the database and logs is based on the antiquated thought that no one could possibly afford RAID 10 for the database and had to cut corners and get RAID 5. If you are not using RAID 5 on spinning disks, then your logs do not get split from the database. They perform better being on the same array, not two different ones.

                                    So in my case, they aren't suggesting RAID 5, because I don't have a storage need? LOL - yeah this tool really is just old! and nearly useless!

                                    uhm..... I'd say drop the nearly on nearly useless.

                                    FTFY 😛

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                    • scottalanmillerS
                                      scottalanmiller @Dashrender
                                      last edited by

                                      @Dashrender said:

                                      @scottalanmiller said:

                                      The concept of splitting the database and logs is based on the antiquated thought that no one could possibly afford RAID 10 for the database and had to cut corners and get RAID 5. If you are not using RAID 5 on spinning disks, then your logs do not get split from the database. They perform better being on the same array, not two different ones.

                                      So in my case, they aren't suggesting RAID 5, because I don't have a storage need? LOL - yeah this tool really is just old! and nearly useless!

                                      Yeah, it's worse than useless, it is actively misleading. Pretty much for most Exchange current installs you can make due just fine with RAID 1 and done.

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • scottalanmillerS
                                        scottalanmiller
                                        last edited by

                                        That's going to be my new phrase...

                                        RAID 1 and Done.

                                        dafyreD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                        • dafyreD
                                          dafyre @scottalanmiller
                                          last edited by

                                          @scottalanmiller said:

                                          That's going to be my new phrase...

                                          RAID 1 and Done.

                                          Sounds like a new SMBITJournal article in the making, ha ha ha.

                                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
                                          • PSX_DefectorP
                                            PSX_Defector @scottalanmiller
                                            last edited by

                                            @scottalanmiller said:

                                            @Dashrender said:

                                            To me it feels like the author is still approaching it from an old school disk performance perspective. One that perhaps wasn't ever really valid (but maybe it was).

                                            I wouldn't call it old school. This was always a silly practice. It's more of just not understanding why things were done and applying them at the wrong time. He is, I think, confusing 1990's array tuning with partition log growth protection.

                                            What, you mean to tell me putting my database on the inside tracks of my disk is no longer valid? What about when I use my SSDs, surely they will appreciate the lower access time of being closer to the controller!

                                            scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • 1
                                            • 2
                                            • 3
                                            • 2 / 3
                                            • First post
                                              Last post