Navigation

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

    Installing Exchange

    IT Discussion
    exchange
    10
    51
    7809
    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.
    • Dashrender
      Dashrender last edited by

      I'm upgrading my Exchange from 2010 to 2016 and found this group of articles that I more or less like.
      http://www.msexchange.org/articles-tutorials/exchange-2016-articles/migration-deployment/migrating-small-organization-exchange-2010-exchange-2016-part1.html

      My question this morning - Is it really necessary to create all of the partitions this guy does?

      Now my install isn't nearly as large the author's, but the Exchange Calculator still saying I should create 2 DB's and split my users over them.

      So following that and the author's logic he thinks I should create 2 DB partitions and 2 Log partitions. This seems like over kill to me.

      What have you done and why?

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

        Seems like a bad idea to me. From a quick look it feels like the author is trying to cover up for not properly sizing, monitoring or managing through partitioning. That's a bad idea.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
        • Dashrender
          Dashrender last edited by

          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).

          scottalanmiller travisdh1 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • dafyre
            dafyre last edited by

            I would keep at most 1 log drive, and 1 mail drive... (underlying raid, yada, yada)... Anything more than that tends to get way over complicated.

            Splitting users of mail stores is easy enough though.

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

              @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.

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

                @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).

                Which was always a fallacy anyway. By making lots of partitions on a drive you could actually force thrashing on the poor drive. If you had different drives it would've actually made sense. Back in the day people would do all sorts of crazy partitioning on Linux as well, never really made sense to me on a single drive.

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

                  @travisdh1 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).

                  Which was always a fallacy anyway. By making lots of partitions on a drive you could actually force thrashing on the poor drive. If you had different drives it would've actually made sense. Back in the day people would do all sorts of crazy partitioning on Linux as well, never really made sense to me on a single drive.

                  That's a great point - I had forgotten that Linux install instructions often recommended many partitions...

                  scottalanmiller 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • scottalanmiller
                    scottalanmiller @travisdh1 last edited by

                    @travisdh1 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).

                    Which was always a fallacy anyway. By making lots of partitions on a drive you could actually force thrashing on the poor drive. If you had different drives it would've actually made sense. Back in the day people would do all sorts of crazy partitioning on Linux as well, never really made sense to me on a single drive.

                    Exactly. This is the author not understanding things he learned by rote... Incorrectly. He's got one bad practice misunderstood and another one at the wrong time. What he is doing was always wrong.

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

                      @Dashrender said:

                      @travisdh1 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).

                      Which was always a fallacy anyway. By making lots of partitions on a drive you could actually force thrashing on the poor drive. If you had different drives it would've actually made sense. Back in the day people would do all sorts of crazy partitioning on Linux as well, never really made sense to me on a single drive.

                      That's a great point - I had forgotten that Linux install instructions often recommended many partitions...

                      Yes. From the big iron days for tens of thousands of users in the 1980s before RAID. Not applicable at all.

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

                        So now I'm debating - do I need a new thread for different part of this install discussion? LOL

                        For the DB's themselves - do I really need to have two as the Exchange Calc tool from MS is suggesting?

                        FYI - Currently we limit non admin users to 200 MB of Mail, and admin are more or less unlimited. our current Exchange DB is 40 GB

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

                          @Dashrender Does Exchange still have a limit to how big the database can be? If so it might be a good idea to go ahead and use two databases. If I'm remembering wrong then whatever.

                          Dashrender 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • Dashrender
                            Dashrender @travisdh1 last edited by

                            @travisdh1 said:

                            @Dashrender Does Exchange still have a limit to how big the database can be? If so it might be a good idea to go ahead and use two databases. If I'm remembering wrong then whatever.

                            Well, the author - someone we've already shown we can't really trust - says that if you're doing traditional full/incremental type backups, one should use multiple DBs.

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

                              The author is also suggesting the use of the new ReFS filesystem with data integrity features disabled.

                              I guess I need to read about ReFS to see if that's really worthwhile or not?

                              travisdh1 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • travisdh1
                                travisdh1 @Dashrender last edited by

                                @Dashrender said:

                                The author is also suggesting the use of the new ReFS filesystem with data integrity features disabled.

                                I guess I need to read about ReFS to see if that's really worthwhile or not?

                                I'd avoid it till Microsoft decides to make ReFS the default instead of NTFS. I haven't heard of many people using it yet, which means that some bugs are still hanging around that need put down.

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • C
                                  Carnival Boy @Dashrender last edited by

                                  @Dashrender said:

                                  FYI - Currently we limit non admin users to 200 MB of Mail, and admin are more or less unlimited. our current Exchange DB is 40 GB

                                  Wow, that's tiny. Surely at that size it doesn't really matter what you do, you'll never have any issues? How do users cope with just 200mb?

                                  Rightly or wrongly, I've always believed calculation tools always massively over-spec. I've always started small with the knowledge that I can expand later if I hit any problems (I never do). So for example, is there any reason you can't start with one DB and add another at a later date if you're unhappy?

                                  I'm no expert, just an interested by-stander, by the way.

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                  • C
                                    Carnival Boy last edited by

                                    It's kind of in a blogger's interest to make things as complicated as possible isn't it? The more complicated it is, the more he has to explain...

                                    I find the same with cookery writers (my other interest) - why use one pan when you can write complicated recipes that use three?

                                    scottalanmiller 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                    • scottalanmiller
                                      scottalanmiller @Carnival Boy last edited by

                                      @Carnival-Boy said:

                                      I find the same with cookery writers (my other interest) - why use one pan when you can write complicated recipes that use three?

                                      Your other interest is cookery, or writing about cookery?

                                      C 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                      • C
                                        Carnival Boy @scottalanmiller last edited by

                                        @scottalanmiller said:

                                        Your other interest is cookery, or writing about cookery?

                                        Both. I cook and I collect cookbooks.

                                        scottalanmiller Dashrender 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                        • Dashrender
                                          Dashrender last edited by

                                          @Carnival-Boy I definitely could start with one (that's what I have today) and expand if needed.

                                          How do my users live with so little email - the reality is that they don't. One good thing about this is that email doesn't collect a lot of misc junk that will never be referenced again. If it's that important, it's saved off and put on the network - at least for the typical staff.

                                          Email for those users is more of a notification board - and a way to send stupid cat pictures. If a user ever came forward and said they needed more email space, a process has been put in place to do an overview of what the user is saving and if it's legitimate, they are given more space. In 6+ years of Exchange, that has never happened.

                                          Before that, users didn't have email access here. More and more systems are requiring unique email for password resets, etc - so we've opened email to everyone company-wise.

                                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • scottalanmiller
                                            scottalanmiller @Carnival Boy last edited by

                                            @Carnival-Boy said:

                                            @scottalanmiller said:

                                            Your other interest is cookery, or writing about cookery?

                                            Both. I cook and I collect cookbooks.

                                            Ah. I thought you collected cookery. Cooking makes more sense :)

                                            I'm sure someone collects cookery as well.

                                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • First post
                                              Last post