Posts Tagged Storage

Exchange 2007 DAS or SAN? Discussion goes on…

I have read about it in many places and my friend Rob actually posted once here about it. Should I use SAN for my Exchange 2007? Will DAS save me money? What about performance? How do I manage storage silos? Troubleshooting complexities in SAN deployments… many questions and many views, but rarely an answer.

There is a reason for it. One cannot definitively answer this question. There are collaterals published by both Microsoft and Storage vendors. Each for obvious reasons promoting different solution.

Microsoft IT published a whitepaper that discussed how Exchange 2007 storage solution was designed and what went into the decision process. Everyone has been reading into the cost savings not realizing that’s not the only takeaway from that whitepaper. To summarize, the following factors played key role:

  • Previous SAN failure and it’s impact on availability
  • Dependency on another group for managing and troubleshooting storage related issues
  • Scaling to higher capacity for each mailbox while controlling costs associated with storage

And these were not the only factors so don’t respond to me with list of other factors that I did not list here.

Microsoft IT deployed DAS based solution and shared their challenges, decision process and outcome along with benefits they reap from the solution implemented.

At the end of the day, the decision is going to be made based on lot of factors including business reasons. Business reasons playing a key role in decisions that will decide if you will implement SAN or DAS. Few I will list here:

  • Existing investment in SAN solutions
  • Existing knowledge and expertise in SAN solutions
  • Management of storage (who is responsible? Application group or Storage group)
  • Cost to implement DAS solution (learning curve, procedures, staff training, support)
  • Operational framework and responsibilities (who should manage storage)
  • Willingness of Storage group to dedicate storage and guarantee performance (dedicated disks on shared array vs. shared disks on shared array)
  • SLAs, Tolerances, Dependencies, Time to recover… the list goes on

As you can see, the factors I listed above are not all technical. Business decisions are made by asking these questions along with facts that answer technical questions related to performance, MTBF, complexity to implement and manage/troubleshoot and so on.

In the end, I am not writing this post to tell you what is the best answer to DAS vs SAN debate. I am writing this to give you some questions that can help you decide for yourself what is best for your environment.

 

“We are our best friend or worst enemies.”

 

Some references to aggregate:

How Microsoft IT Exceeds High-Availability Targets with Large Mailboxes at Low Costs Based on New Storage Designs

Some more thoughts on SAN v DAS. Is it actually time to consider DAS? – Doug Owans

Brian Henderson – Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 Storage Considerations: DAS or SAN

Share

Tags: , , ,

DAS vs. SAN in Exchange 2007

I have spent a lot of time recently investigating storage solutions as part of a migration design for Exchange 2007.

The current implemented solution is a multi-node Exchange 2003 cluster with SAN based storage (No HA/DR). With Exchange 2007 the desire is to deploy a  CCR/SCR solution to allow for data redundancy, disaster recovery, and site resiliency. The toughest decision that I have been faced with (given that I am not a storage guru) is in storage design. Should it be a DAS or SAN based solution? Each has benefits and negatives. Here are my random thoughts on the subject.

Performance:

Traditionally storage has always been the bottleneck in systems hosting heavy IO applications like Exchange. With the transition to 64-bit in Exchange 2007, IO has been significantly reduced. This has allowed DAS (mainly Serial-Attached SCSI) to become a viable alternative solution for Exchange deployments.

Scalability:

SANs are very scalable but as they scale the TCO increases. DAS based solutions are able to scale less but at a much lower cost.

Availability:

Any shared storage represents a single point of failure. Although it is rare for a SAN to fail, anything is possible. The HA and DR solutions offered by SAN vendors are generally very expensive and difficult to implement and support. The CCR/SCR solutions offered by Exchange 2007 in combination with DAS storage, offer a lower cost and easier to manage, high availability solution.

Cost:

DAS based solutions can offer a significant cost savings over SAN based storage.

Some additional points to consider:

Footprint – DAS based storage array cabinets from most vendors (HP, Dell) that I have investigated, require 2U of rack space each. Any significant storage requirements would lead to significant rack space, power, and cooling requirements.

Administration – DAS allows for more centralized control of the storage configuration by the messaging team. The setup and maintenance is less complex than prior SAN configurations and does not include the need  to rely on a storage administrator for assistance.

This is an interesting and important area to investigate as part of any Exchange deployment. As with any solution, a lot depends on what you current requirement is and future requirements are.

References:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc500980.aspx

http://www.emc.com/collateral/demos/microsites/mediaplayer-video/henderson-exchange.htm

http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2006/10/05/429103.aspx

Share

Tags: , , , ,