Exchange 2007 CCR design

Chris · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 79

We are currently running Exchange 2003 two node cluster (A/P) using EMC SAN.
Moving to Exchange 2007 we plan to achive the same availbility by using CCR.
The question is that whether we should SAN to DAS? Besides the cost (SAN is
expensive since we need to add new DAE) what are the pros and cons?

Thanks.

Archived from group: microsoft>public>exchange>design

Mark Arnold [MVP] · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 1126

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:53:05 -0800, Chris
wrote:

>We are currently running Exchange 2003 two node cluster (A/P) using EMC SAN.
>Moving to Exchange 2007 we plan to achive the same availbility by using CCR.
>The question is that whether we should SAN to DAS? Besides the cost (SAN is
>expensive since we need to add new DAE) what are the pros and cons?
>
>Thanks.

The SAN is only expensive because you've got the worlds most
overpriced SAN.
DAS is perfectly fine. The cons you will have are the recoverability
issues from your backup but oh, wait, EMC doesn't actually have a
decent snapshot recovery so there's another reason to promote the DAS
side.
Pro's with the EMC solution? It's far more flexible than DAS. If you
find yourself in need of more storage you can just add more disks
carry out minor work on the storage to give you more. You will
probably also not lose as much in RAID loss with the SAN so it might
actually be a wash cost-wise.

Bharat Suneja [MVP] · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 1043

>The cons you will have are the recoverability
> issues from your backup but oh, wait, EMC doesn't actually have a
> decent snapshot recovery so there's another reason to promote the DAS
> side.

For new deployments, DAS does make a lot more sense in most environments,
unless you have a lot of investment in existing SAN solutions.

There are storage vendors that do provide some great solutions...
--
Bharat Suneja
MVP - Exchange
www.zenprise.com
NEW blog location:
exchangepedia.com/blog
----------------------------------------------

"Mark Arnold [MVP]" wrote in message @4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:53:05 -0800, Chris
> wrote:
>
>>We are currently running Exchange 2003 two node cluster (A/P) using EMC
>>SAN.
>>Moving to Exchange 2007 we plan to achive the same availbility by using
>>CCR.
>>The question is that whether we should SAN to DAS? Besides the cost (SAN
>>is
>>expensive since we need to add new DAE) what are the pros and cons?
>>
>>Thanks.
>
> The SAN is only expensive because you've got the worlds most
> overpriced SAN.
> DAS is perfectly fine. The cons you will have are the recoverability
> issues from your backup but oh, wait, EMC doesn't actually have a
> decent snapshot recovery so there's another reason to promote the DAS
> side.
> Pro's with the EMC solution? It's far more flexible than DAS. If you
> find yourself in need of more storage you can just add more disks
> carry out minor work on the storage to give you more. You will
> probably also not lose as much in RAID loss with the SAN so it might
> actually be a wash cost-wise.
>

Mark Arnold [MVP] · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 1126

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 08:49:59 -0800, "Bharat Suneja [MVP]"
wrote:

>>The cons you will have are the recoverability
>> issues from your backup but oh, wait, EMC doesn't actually have a
>> decent snapshot recovery so there's another reason to promote the DAS
>> side.
>
>For new deployments, DAS does make a lot more sense in most environments,
>unless you have a lot of investment in existing SAN solutions.
>
>There are storage vendors that do provide some great solutions...

Yup.
An Exchange environment, especially one based on CCR should never go
on a fibre channel subsystem. iSCSI is absolutley the right way to go
on this. NetApp is the very best solution, followed by Compellent (as
it's got some very cool disk features) and then the Dell (Equallogic)
solution. I'll probably go to hell for this one but even that insanity
from LeftHand is worth a little look so long as you have a room full
of infrastructure that you no longer need. The EMC is the utter worst
option, be it Clariion, Celera, Centera or anything else at the low
end.

Still, if you've got a hulking great EMC box then the decision on
whether to throw disk at it or have Exchange flip it the finger isn't
really a technical one.

John Fullbright · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 365

What value add does the proposed SAN solution provide? Flexibility? The
Clariion architecture - RAID groups of a set RAID type from which you carve
the LUNs isn't all that flexible. Snapshots or clones - on a Clariion your
options are limited. Try putting about 8 snaps in place and see what
happens. Are you using the EMC replication tools to replicate your data
elsewhere for DR? That might be a consideration. Then again, if your RPO
isn't strictly time based then CCR is a good alternative at a lower
licensing cost. What are you using to backup? Is it integrated with your
SAN solution? Would going DAS require a putting yet another backup solution
in your environment?

"Chris" wrote in message @microsoft.com...
> We are currently running Exchange 2003 two node cluster (A/P) using EMC
> SAN.
> Moving to Exchange 2007 we plan to achive the same availbility by using
> CCR.
> The question is that whether we should SAN to DAS? Besides the cost (SAN
> is
> expensive since we need to add new DAE) what are the pros and cons?
>
> Thanks.

Brian Henderson · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 1

No one really answered your question "Should we move from DAS to SAN?"

I'd say Yes. Here are the benefits:

Centralized Management Allows for Higher Capacity Utilization.

Instead of managing each server’s utilization separately, a free space pool
can be managed from a central location to accommodate greater scalability and
constantly changing requirements.

Greater Resiliency to Failures through Shared Resource Distribution.

Disk failures on a direct-attached-storage (DAS) array are widely “felt” by
users who reside on that mailbox server. When databases are stored on a
storage area networks, users are distributed across fault-tolerant
architectures that are able to withstand various types of outages that other
customers have faced before… so that when failures do happen, users are
likely to not even notice.

LAN-Free Snapshot Backups and Replication Can Eliminate Backup Windows.

Streaming backups often take many hours and consume the majority of CPU
operations during the backup process. SAN-based snapshot technologies allow
Exchange to be backed up with little to no downtime or impact to production
servers. Depending on the SW, it is simple to add snapshots into your
current backup architecture - without throwing away your existing backup
software. Replication software can also be combined with these snapshot
technologies to deliver a LAN-free offsite backup.

Synchronous Replication Allows for Automated, Intelligent DR with Zero Data
Loss

Some of the built-in replication features for Exchange are good enough for
small environments, but these features also require a lot of disk space,
consume host CPU resources, and network bandwidth. They also put companies at
risk of losing data (the amount of data in uncommitted log files). Today,
only SAN-based synchronous replication offers the ability to have a failure
and not lose any data in transit. In addition, you have some stuff like EMC’s
Cluster Enablers which can be combined with synchronous replication
technologies in order to provide a zero-data loss solution with automatic
failover.

Enable Advanced Capabilities Such as Virtualization, Global Archiving,
Single Mailbox Restore, Image Provisioning, Zero Data Loss Replication, and
More

Companies that consolidate onto a SAN immediately see a wide-variety of
benefits they hadn’t seen in distributed (DAS) environments. A SAN can
provide an optimal framework for a virtualized infrastructure utilizing
VMware ESX or Microsoft’s upcoming Hyper-V. Archiving can be set up to
eliminate PST files and enable true SIS (single instance storage) across all
mailbox servers. Dedupe technologies can allow incremental-forever
functionality so that only the smallest changes ever get sent across the
network. There are also some cool technologies that can open up restored
single mailboxes from a snapshot copy of Exchange – without requiring another
Exchange license – or performing brick-level backups. Snapshot copies are
also useful for keeping gold copies of server images and for testing service
pack upgrades.

Lower Overall Costs of Management and Operation

Although cutting out the SAN from the budget will certainly save some money,
the operational costs of an environment utilizing a SAN are actually lower
than deploying direct attached storage (DAS). Exchange CCR and SCR still
require significant amounts of servers, disk space, floor space, power, and
cooling. It takes more time and effort to manage an environment like this –
higher operational expenses. With a SAN, a single person can manage more
terabytes, and handle advanced features in a centralized location as opposed
to small islands of server-attached storage. This is much more efficient and
results in much lower overall costs.

HTH
B

"Chris" wrote:

> We are currently running Exchange 2003 two node cluster (A/P) using EMC SAN.
> Moving to Exchange 2007 we plan to achive the same availbility by using CCR.
> The question is that whether we should SAN to DAS? Besides the cost (SAN is
> expensive since we need to add new DAE) what are the pros and cons?
>
> Thanks.

John Fullbright · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 365

There's no question that there is a lot of value add to using SAN storage.
Exactly what that value add is depends on the specific SAN, and how that
applies to you organization depends on your organization's specific needs.

"Brian Henderson" wrote in
message @microsoft.com...
> No one really answered your question "Should we move from DAS to SAN?"
>
> I'd say Yes. Here are the benefits:
>
> Centralized Management Allows for Higher Capacity Utilization.
>
> Instead of managing each server's utilization separately, a free space
> pool
> can be managed from a central location to accommodate greater scalability
> and
> constantly changing requirements.
>
> Greater Resiliency to Failures through Shared Resource Distribution.
>
> Disk failures on a direct-attached-storage (DAS) array are widely "felt"
> by
> users who reside on that mailbox server. When databases are stored on a
> storage area networks, users are distributed across fault-tolerant
> architectures that are able to withstand various types of outages that
> other
> customers have faced before. so that when failures do happen, users are
> likely to not even notice.
>
> LAN-Free Snapshot Backups and Replication Can Eliminate Backup Windows.
>
> Streaming backups often take many hours and consume the majority of CPU
> operations during the backup process. SAN-based snapshot technologies
> allow
> Exchange to be backed up with little to no downtime or impact to
> production
> servers. Depending on the SW, it is simple to add snapshots into your
> current backup architecture - without throwing away your existing backup
> software. Replication software can also be combined with these snapshot
> technologies to deliver a LAN-free offsite backup.
>
> Synchronous Replication Allows for Automated, Intelligent DR with Zero
> Data
> Loss
>
> Some of the built-in replication features for Exchange are good enough for
> small environments, but these features also require a lot of disk space,
> consume host CPU resources, and network bandwidth. They also put companies
> at
> risk of losing data (the amount of data in uncommitted log files). Today,
> only SAN-based synchronous replication offers the ability to have a
> failure
> and not lose any data in transit. In addition, you have some stuff like
> EMC's
> Cluster Enablers which can be combined with synchronous replication
> technologies in order to provide a zero-data loss solution with automatic
> failover.
>
> Enable Advanced Capabilities Such as Virtualization, Global Archiving,
> Single Mailbox Restore, Image Provisioning, Zero Data Loss Replication,
> and
> More
>
> Companies that consolidate onto a SAN immediately see a wide-variety of
> benefits they hadn't seen in distributed (DAS) environments. A SAN can
> provide an optimal framework for a virtualized infrastructure utilizing
> VMware ESX or Microsoft's upcoming Hyper-V. Archiving can be set up to
> eliminate PST files and enable true SIS (single instance storage) across
> all
> mailbox servers. Dedupe technologies can allow incremental-forever
> functionality so that only the smallest changes ever get sent across the
> network. There are also some cool technologies that can open up restored
> single mailboxes from a snapshot copy of Exchange - without requiring
> another
> Exchange license - or performing brick-level backups. Snapshot copies are
> also useful for keeping gold copies of server images and for testing
> service
> pack upgrades.
>
> Lower Overall Costs of Management and Operation
>
> Although cutting out the SAN from the budget will certainly save some
> money,
> the operational costs of an environment utilizing a SAN are actually lower
> than deploying direct attached storage (DAS). Exchange CCR and SCR still
> require significant amounts of servers, disk space, floor space, power,
> and
> cooling. It takes more time and effort to manage an environment like
> this -
> higher operational expenses. With a SAN, a single person can manage more
> terabytes, and handle advanced features in a centralized location as
> opposed
> to small islands of server-attached storage. This is much more efficient
> and
> results in much lower overall costs.
>
> HTH
> B
>
> "Chris" wrote:
>
>> We are currently running Exchange 2003 two node cluster (A/P) using EMC
>> SAN.
>> Moving to Exchange 2007 we plan to achive the same availbility by using
>> CCR.
>> The question is that whether we should SAN to DAS? Besides the cost (SAN
>> is
>> expensive since we need to add new DAE) what are the pros and cons?
>>
>> Thanks.

Exchange 2007 CAS Proxying Design Hi, I would like to know your feedback and whether this scenario could or couldn't work customer has 3 AD Sites dispersed. Site 1 is connected to Internet but does not have any mailboxes - It would have 1 CAS/HT server Site 2 does have 1000

design advice: Exch 2007 servers for faculty and students... 2 Exchange 2007 servers (one for faculty and one for students) 1 domain Recently, I was told to integrate our students into our single active directory domain and create Exchange mailboxes for them. We purchased licenses for 3 Exchange servers: 1 for fac

Exchange design with SAN Im thinking of having 4 mail stores in the same attached SAN disk, what do you think I should do with the Tlogs. This is my plan. HP servers DL380 X 2 clustered with REID 5 in each for the OS and Exchange 2003 100 Gb of SAN disk for the 4 mail stores 25gb

General design questions We are running Exchange 2003 but want to add a new server into existing with Exchange 2007. Working on the design and have some quesitons. 1. Is ISA necessary? I don't use it now. We use basic for OWA. Firewall passes tra

Routing group Connector design we have an exchange 2003 organization with several servers placed worldwide .. All the sites are connected via VPN with a relatively high bandwith >= 512K A RG has been defined for each branch . At the moment the RG connectors topology is HUB-SPOKE . All