RAID setup and server specifications for new Symantec Enterprise Vault deployment

[H_Curry]

I am trying to put together a couple servers for a new Symantec Enterprise Vault deployment.

I have spec’d out a couple servers and am wondering if they are appropriate:

For Both the SQL server and the SEV/Compliance Accelerator server

2x Quad-Core 3.0 GHz processors

8GB RAM

6x 15000rpm 146.8GB Hard Drives

Windows 2008 x64

The SEV server would also have fibre attached storage with over 4 TB available

9x 698GB Hard Drives

The performance document recommends RAID 10 for the servers. With only 6 hard drives for the SQL and SEV servers, is it better to do a larger RAID 10 container and setup the appropriate sized partitions across all the drives or is it better to setup 3 RAID 1 containers with 1 partition each?

Also, for the attached storage, is it ok to set it up as RAID 5 or should that also be a RAID 10 container?  It looks like 500 GB partitions are recommended.

If these servers are too small, do you have a recommendation for another type of box?

 Thank you!

[Liam_Finn1]

 it is not as easy as here are the hardware specs will this work.
It all depends on what you plan to archive, how much you will archive, how long you plan to retain the data, how many users, size of data to and % change.

Are you journaling, are you doing mailbox archiving

So many factors to include you really need to have an EV consultant come in and help you design your environment to be sure it is sized right


Will the hardware you list work with EV ....sure

Will it support 10,000 users ...... hell no

This is why you need to have it sized right. Find a local provider and have them come in a help you size your environment correctly

[H_Curry]

Yes Journaling
Yes Mailbox Archiving
Yes Compliance Accelerator

300 users

Over the next three years retain approx 2TB of email
21,840,000 messages
Currently need to archive 1TB of data

I project that the 6 SQL databases will take over 35GB total.

My biggest question is:  What is the best RAID setup for the various containers?

Thank you.

[Liam_Finn1]

For DA and CA you need speed searching. For this you need RAID 10 for your indexes. Depending on the number and size of searches the more spindles you give to the indexes the faster your search results will be 

for your file storage i would also recommend RAID 10 but if this is not possable do RAID 6

[H_Curry]

Thank you!

[Liam_Finn1]

 If you have the solution to your question please mark the appropriate answer as the solution

[H_Curry · Accepted solution]

Received information from Symantec rep:

We recommend RAID 10 for fault tolerance as well as performance. RAID 10 will allow for better read/write speeds than a RAID 5 because it doesn’t have to manage parity.  In the end, the decision you make regarding the disk arrays will be up to you, as they would all be supported by Symantec, but you’d have to evaluate cost versus risk in your own environment.  I know it’s not the clear cut answer you were looking for, but I hope it helps to know that though we recommend RAID 10 if you’d like to try to cut costs by going RAID 5, that would be ok as long as you’re aware that it will degrade performance.

My response:

Thank You!  I really appreciate the feedback. 

If we do a single RAID 10 container on the 6 drives for the SQL server rather than three RAID 1s, should we still do separate partitions for the various functions?  (i.e. OS, TranLogs, Databases).  It seems that we would not see the benefit of separate partitions since we would be writing to the same disks/container.  Or would we still see benefit since it might simplify maintenance (i.e. defragmenting, back-ups)

Received response from Symantec rep:

Thanks!  You’re pretty much right on the money regarding the separate partitions.  Here’s a scenario where separate partitions might help.  If later on you decided to move the indexes or logs to a new location the process would involve stopping all the services, moving the data and then doing a find and replace in SQL.  If they’re all on the same partition doing that find and replace is more complex.

[Andy_Wragg_-_BT]

Dont use SATA for SQL at all unless you want it to run  like a 3 legged dog.

Also  - Dont forget to make a seperare LUN for SQL TEMPDB. The biggest performance hit on a SQL box is a TEMPDB located on the same LUN as the user/ other system databases. I see this all the time when out and about.

Dont create Windows partitions from one big LUN, use the array controller to make smaller LUNs and then present them to windows as individual 'disks'. This is a more efficient use of cache on the array.

As for the number of drives you have avaialble for SQL, remember the numebr of drives dictates how many IOPS your RAID set can support. A simple RAID 1 RAID set of 2 disks might only give you a small number of IOPS to support your databases.

As for storage for the Vault Stores, if you plan to use SATA remember to use RAID 6. SATA drives fail much faster rate than SAS/P-SCSI drives and the much larger densities means greatly increased parity rebuild times. This activity itself can cause additional drive failures, hence the need for double parity protection. Also SATA is much 'slower' so keep the number of disks in the RAID set as big as possible, to ensure your have enough disk IOPS and bandwidth available.