2 Content DELL TM PowerEdge TM T Mailbox Resiliency Exchange 2010 Storage Solution... 1 Content... 2 Overview... 3 Disclaimer... 3 Features... 3 Tested Deployment... 5 Simulated Exchange Configuration:... 5 Storage Hardware... 6 Storage Software... 6 Storage Disk Configuration (Mailbox Store Disks)... 7 Storage Disk Configuration (Transactional Log Disks)... 7 Solution Constraints... 7 RAID5 Performance... 8 Best Practices... 8 Backup strategy... 9 Contact for Additional Information... 9 Test Result Summary... 9 Reliability Storage Performance Results Replicated Storage Performance Results Backup/Recovery Performance Read-only Performance Transaction Log Recovery/Replay Performance Conclusion Appendix A: Stress Testing Stress Test Result Report Test Result Report Appendix B: Performance Testing Performance Test Result Report Test Result Report Appendix C: Soft Recovery Testing SoftRecovery Test Result Report Part SoftRecovery Test Result Report Part Appendix D: Backup Testing backup Test Result Report... 21
3 Overview This document provides information on Dell storage solution for Microsoft Exchange Server, based the Microsoft Exchange Solution Reviewed Program (ESRP) Storage program*. For any questions or comments regarding the contents of this document, see Contact for Additional Information. *The ESRP Storage program was developed by Microsoft Corporation to provide a common storage testing framework for vendors to provide information on its storage solutions for Microsoft Exchange Server software. For more details on the Microsoft ESRP Storage program, please click Disclaimer This document has been produced independently of Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft Corporation expressly disclaims responsibility for, and makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect to, the accuracy of the contents of this document. The information contained in this document represents the current view of Dell on the issues discussed as of the date of publication. Due to changing market conditions, it should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Dell, and Dell cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information presented after the date of publication. Features This white paper describes a tested and validated storage solution. It includes two Dell PowerEdge T610 servers for 500 mailboxes Exchange Server 2010 environment configured in a Data Availability Group (DAG). A DAG is the new high availability mechanism in Microsoft Exchange This model of mailbox resiliency supports multiple copies of Exchange database (up to 16) in a DAG. There is only one active copy of a given Exchange 2010 database at any given time. Secondary copies are periodically synched with the primary copy. Mail clients access the primary (active) copy, and database changes to the primary copy are copied to the secondary (passive) copies in the form of transaction logs. The copied log records are played on the secondary copy to keep the secondary database copies consistent with the primary copy. The secondary hosts are configured to be identical to the primary. The primary and secondary copy storages do not share storage array controllers or disks. In this configuration, each PowerEdge T610 hosts one active copy of an Exchange 2010 database and transaction logs and one passive copy of the peer node s active database. Each database hosts 250 users with 4GB mailbox each. The tested user profile here was 0.15 IOPS per user (0.15 IOPS per user with 20% headroom.) Dell PowerEdge T610 provides SAS based internal storage with RAID Capable of housing up to ten 3.5-inch Near-Line SAS disk drives
4 Host based RAID options with Dell PERC 6/i The PowerEdge T610 DAG solution presented in this paper utilizes a total of 8 disks per DAG member - 6 disks for Exchange database and transaction logs, 2 additional drives are used for operating system and application files. Solution Description The Dell PowerEdge T610 server is the building block for this solution and is capable of meeting the high performance requirements of messaging deployments. For more information see Dell PowerEdge T610. Dell PERC 6/i RAID controller is used in the PowerEdge T610 hosting the Exchange server. The presented solution is for up to 500 mailboxes. The tested user profile was 0.15 IOPS per user (0.15 IOPS per user with 20% headroom) with a 4 GB mailbox size. Recommended Hardware Configuration: Microsoft Exchange Server System: Dell PowerEdge T610 Server (MAC8) CPU 2 2.4GHz Intel Quadcore CPU Memory (2 x 8GB) = 16GB DDR2 NIC Broadcom NeXtreme II RAID Controller PERC 6i (FW Version ) Internal Disks GB SAS 3.5 drive,7.2k rpm RAID1 (Operating System) Storage System Dell PowerEdge T610 Server internal storage with RAID Disks (6 1) TB SAS 3.5 drive, RAID -5, 7.2K rpm (DB+LOG) RAID Controller PERC 6/i (FW Version )
5 Figure 1: Graphical representation of DAG solution The ESRP-Storage program focuses on storage solution testing to address performance and reliability issues with storage design. However, storage is not the only factor to take into consideration when designing a scale up Exchange solution. Other factors which affect the server scalability are: server processor utilization, server physical and virtual memory limitations, resource requirements for other applications, directory and network service latencies, network infrastructure limitations, replication and recovery requirements, and client usage profiles. All these factors are beyond the scope for ESRP-Storage. Therefore, the number of mailboxes hosted per server as part of the tested configuration may not necessarily be viable for some customer deployment. Tested Deployment The following tables summarize the testing environment: Simulated Exchange Configuration: Number of Exchange mailboxes 500 simulated Number of Availability 1 Groups (DAGs) Number of servers/dag 2 Number of active mailboxes/server 1 Number of databases/host 2 Number of copies/database 2 Number of mailboxes/database 250
6 Simulated profile: s per second per mailbox (IOPS, include 20% headroom) LUN size Log LUN size Total database size for performance testing % storage capacity used by Exchange database** GB (3 Disks x 1TB) [DB+LOG] 1.81GB (3 Disks x 1TB) [DB+LOG] 1 TB ~54% **Storage performance characteristics change based on the percentage utilization of the individual disks. Tests that use a small percentage of the storage (~25%) may exhibit reduced throughput if the storage capacity utilization is significantly increased beyond what is tested in this paper. Storage Hardware Storage Connectivity (Fiber Channel, SAS, SATA, iscsi) Storage model and OS/firmware revision Storage cache Number of storage controllers Number of storage ports Maximum bandwidth of storage connectivity to host Switch type/model/firmware revision HBA model and firmware NL SAS N/A Perc 6i Number of HBA s/nost 1 Host server type Internal Storage and OS is WS08 SP2, v MB Perc 6i N/A 3 Gb/s SAS Dell T610 Processor:2 2.13GHz Intel Quad-core RAM:(2 x 8GB)+(4 x 4GB)=32GB DDR2 Total number of disks tested in solution Maximum number of spindles can be hosted in the storage 6 8 Storage Software HBA driver , A03 HBA QueueTarget Setting N/A HBA QueueDepth Setting N/A Multi-Pathing N/A Host OS Windows 2008 SP2, v.659 ESE.dll file version Replication solution name/version N/A
7 Storage Disk Configuration (Mailbox Store Disks) Disk type, speed and firmware NL SAS drive of 1TB each, 7.2K RPM revision Raw capacity per disk (GB) 1TB Number of physical disks in test 6(DB+LOG)+2(OS)=8 Total raw storage capacity (GB) 6TB Disk slice size (GB) 1TB Number of slices per LUN or number 3 of disks per LUN Raid level RAID5 Total formatted capacity 1.81TB x 2 Storage capacity utilization ~60% capacity utilization ~54% Storage Disk Configuration (Transactional Log Disks) Disk type, speed and firmware NL SAS drive of 1TB each, 7.2K RPM revision Raw capacity per disk (GB) 1TB Number of Spindles in test 6(DB+LOG)+2(OS)=8 total raw storage capacity (GB) 6TB Disk slice size (GB) 1TB Number of slices per LUN or number 3 of disks per LUN Raid level RAID5 Total formatted capacity 1.81TB x 2 Solution Constraints The storage solution presented in this paper uses RAID5 containers for the exchange database and logs. Although RAID5 provides a better value in terms of capacity, as compared to RAID1 or RAID10, it does not perform as well in terms of throughput. There are two reasons for this: First, under normal operating conditions, RAID5 has to do extra work because it has to generate and update parity information. Parity information is what makes RAID5 fault tolerant and RAID recovery possible. Second, in case of disk failures, a RAID5 container has the added task of restoring data and parity it in addition to serving IO normal requests and this can significantly deteriorate the performance during rebuild. Additionally, a RAID5 volume can only tolerate a single disk failure as compared to RAID10 which can survive up to N disk failures for an N+N RAID10 volume.
8 RAID5 Performance Optimal Degraded Rebuilding IOPs Read (milliseconds) write (milliseconds) As seen in the RAID5 performance table, performance is reduced significantly during a RAID5 rebuild cycle. In the optimal state, the RAID5 database disks provide 147 IOPS with a read latency of 14.9 milliseconds and write latency of 0.35 milliseconds. In degraded state the IO throughput reduces to 129 IOPS and the database read latency increases to 18.8 milliseconds. During the rebuild cycle the throughput is further reduced to 108 IOPS with read latency of 25milliseconds and write latency of 0.39 milliseconds. The disk throughput reduces by about 27% during the rebuild cycle as compared to the optimal state. Best Practices Exchange server is a disk-intensive application. Based on the testing run using the ESRP framework, we would recommend the following to improve the storage performance. For Exchange 2010 best practices on storage design, please visit 1. Exchange 2010 is an IO intensive application. Sharing Exchange 2010 storage resources with other applications may negatively impact the performance of Exchange 2010 deployment and therefore is not recommended. 2. In our testing, the database and log folders shared the same physical disk. Other testing indicated that separating the database folders from log folders on to different set of disks does not provide a noticeable performance advantage. In an Exchange Server 2010 resiliency solution, separating the database and log folders is no longer a required best practice. 3. For Exchange 2010, it is recommended that the size of elements within a RAID stripe be set 512K for best performance. 4. Windows NTFS allocation unit size for Exchange 2010 database partitions should be set to 64K for best performance. For log partitions, if separated from database, the default allocation unit size should be used. 5. Exchange Server 2010 storage latencies are most often related the number of disks available for given a workload. Windows Performance Monitor may
9 be used to monitor Exchange Server 2010 database counters. database read latencies (Avg. Disk sec/read) should not exceed 20ms. 6. Please list out some common performance troubleshooting techniques for the solution. Such as what tools to use, how to interpret the values from the tool. What are some of the common causes for poor performance? Backup strategy To protect data from potential disasters having a well designed and implemented backup solution is critical. Depending on the requirements of an environment different backup strategies may be implemented such as: Backup to disk Backup to tape LAN/SAN based backup etc. In this solution, DAG is used to maintain a passive database copy on a separate storage system. This passive copy of the database may be used to perform to tape or disk. The tests performed for backup include: backup-to-disk (read only) and log replay. The backup-to-disk test measures the read performance by running a checksum on all the databases and log files. This test can help determine what kind of database read throughput can be achieved during backups. The backup speed and throughput achieved will depend upon the backup device used. The log replay test was used to measure the maximum rate at which the log files can be played against the databases. This is used to determine the restore times and also database write throughput can be achieved during a log recovery. Contact for Additional Information For additional information please visit Dell and Exchange Server 2010 Test Result Summary This section provides a high level summary of the test data from ESRP and the link to the detailed html reports which are generated by ESRP testing framework. Please click on the underlined headings below to view the html report for each test.
10 Reliability A number of tests in the framework are to check Reliability tests runs for 24 hours. The goal is to verify the storage can handle high IO load for a long period of time. Both log and database files will be analyzed for integrity after the stress test to ensure no database/log corruption. The following list provides an overview: (click on the underlined word will show the html report after the reliability tests run) Any errors reported in the saved event log file? No errors reported on event log. No Any errors reported in during the database and log checksum process? No Storage Performance Results The Primary Storage performance testing is designed to exercise the storage with maximum sustainable Exchange type of IO for 2 hours. The test is to show how long it takes for the storage to respond to an IO under load. The data below is the sum of all of the logical disk s and average of all the logical disks latency in the 2 hours test duration. Each server is listed separately and the aggregate numbers across all servers is listed as well. Individual Server Metrics: The sum of s across Storage Groups and the average latency across all Storage Groups on a per server basis. Disks Transfers/sec Disks /sec 79.6 Disks /sec 53.3 Disk Read 18.4 (ms) Disk Write 2.96 (ms) Transaction Log Log Disks /sec 53 Log Disk Write (ms) 1.58 Aggregate Performance across all servers Metrics: The sum of s across servers in solution and the average latency across all servers in solution. Disks Transfers/sec 132.9
11 Disks /sec 79.6 Disks /sec 53.3 Disk Read 18.4 (ms) Disk Write 2.96 (ms) Transaction Log Log Disks /sec 53 Log Disk Write (ms) 1.58 Replicated Storage Performance Results The Replicated Storage (e.g. storage based replication target). These performance tests measure the performance of the Secondary Storage. The performance tests are identical to that of the Primary Storage and verify that the Secondary Storage is capable of being transitioned to become the Primary Storage. Each server is listed separately and the aggregate numbers across all servers is listed as well. Individual Server Metrics: The sum of s across Storage Groups and the average latency across all Storage Groups on a per server basis. Disks Transfers/sec Disks /sec 79.6 Disks /sec 53.3 Disk Read 18.4 (ms) Disk Write 2.96 (ms) Transaction Log Log Disks /sec 53 Log Disk Write (ms) 1.58 Aggregate Performance across all servers Metrics: The sum of s across servers in solution and the average latency across all all servers in solution. Disks Transfers/sec 132.9
12 Disks /sec 79.6 Disks /sec 53.3 Disk Read (ms) Disk Write 2.96 (ms) Transaction Log Log Disks /sec 53 Log Disk Write (ms) 1.58 Backup/Recovery Performance There are two tests reports in this section. The first one is to measure the sequential read rate of the database files, and the second is to measure the recovery/replay performance (playing transaction logs in to the database). Read-only Performance The test is to measure the maximum rate at which databases could be backed up via VSS. The following table shows the average rate for a single database file. MB read/sec per database 45 MB read/sec total per server 90 Transaction Log Recovery/Replay Performance The test is to measure the maximum rate at which the log files can be played against the databases. The following table shows the average rate for 500 log files played in a single storage group. Each log file is 1 MB in size. time to play one Log file (sec) 4 Conclusion This document is developed by storage solution providers, and reviewed by Microsoft Exchange Product team. The test results/data presented in this document is based on the tests introduced in the ESRP test framework. Customer should not quote the data directly for his/her pre-deployment verification. It is still necessary to go through the exercises to validate the storage design for a specific customer environment. ESRP program is not designed to be a benchmarking program; tests are not designed to getting the maximum throughput for a giving solution. Rather, it is focused on producing recommendations from vendors for Exchange application. So the data presented in this document should not be used for direct comparisons among the solutions.
14 Appendix A: Stress Testing Stress Test Result Report Test Summary Overall Test Result Machine Name Test Description Test Start Time Test End Time Pass EXCHANGE2010 3/29/2010 2:24:53 PM 3/30/2010 2:30:45 PM Collection Start Time 3/29/2010 2:30:28 PM Collection End Time 3/30/2010 2:30:27 PM Jetstress Version Ese Version Operating System Windows Server (R) 2008 Enterprise Service Pack 2, v.659 ( ) Performance Log C:\Exchange Jetstress\New Test\Stress\Stress_2010_3_29_14_24_58.blg C:\Exchange Jetstress\New Test\Stress\DBChecksum_2010_3_30_14_30_45.blg Sizing and Throughput Achieved Transactional per Second Target Transactional per Second 75 Initial Size (bytes) Final Size (bytes) Files (Count) 2 Jetstress System Parameters Thread Count 2 (per database) Minimum Cache 64.0 MB Maximum Cache MB Insert Operations 40% Delete Operations 20% Replace Operations 5% Read Operations 35% Lazy Commits 70% Run Background Maintenance True Number of Copies per 2 Configuration Instance Log Path: D:\Log1 : D:\DB1\Jetstress edb Instance Log Path: G:\Log2 : G:\DB2\Jetstress edb Transactional Performance MSExchange ==> Instances /sec /sec Log Log Log Log Log /sec /sec Log Instance Instance Background Maintenance Performance MSExchange ==> Instances Maintenance IO /sec Maintenance IO Instance Instance Log Replication Performance MSExchange ==> Instances Log /sec Log Instance Instance Total Performance MSExchange ==> Instances /sec /sec Log Log Log Log Log /sec /sec Log
15 Instance Instance Host System Performance Counter Minimum Maximum % Processor Time Available M Free System Page Table Entries Transition Pages RePurposed/sec Pool Nonpaged Pool Paged Page Fault Stalls/sec Test Log3/29/2010 2:24:53 PM -- Jetstress testing begins... 3/29/2010 2:24:53 PM -- Prepare testing begins... 3/29/2010 2:24:56 PM -- Attaching databases... 3/29/2010 2:24:56 PM -- Prepare testing ends. 3/29/2010 2:24:56 PM -- Dispatching transactions begins... 3/29/2010 2:24:56 PM -- cache settings: (minimum: 64.0 MB, maximum: MB) 3/29/2010 2:24:56 PM -- flush thresholds: (start: 5.1 MB, stop: 10.2 MB) 3/29/2010 2:24:58 PM -- read latency thresholds: (average: 20 msec/read, maximum: 200 msec/read). 3/29/2010 2:24:58 PM -- Log write latency thresholds: (average: 10 msec/write, maximum: 200 msec/write). 3/29/2010 2:24:59 PM -- Operation mix: Sessions 2, Inserts 40%, Deletes 20%, Replaces 5%, 35%, Lazy Commits 70%. 3/29/2010 2:24:59 PM -- Performance logging begins (interval: ms). 3/29/2010 2:24:59 PM -- Attaining prerequisites: 3/29/2010 2:30:28 PM -- \MSExchange (JetstressWin)\ Cache Size, Last: (lower bound: , upper bound: none) 3/30/2010 2:30:29 PM -- Performance logging ends. 3/30/2010 2:30:29 PM -- JetInterop batch transaction stats: and /30/2010 2:30:29 PM -- Dispatching transactions ends. 3/30/2010 2:30:29 PM -- Shutting down databases... 3/30/2010 2:30:45 PM -- Instance (complete) and Instance (complete) 3/30/2010 2:30:46 PM -- Performance logging begins (interval: ms). 3/30/2010 2:30:46 PM -- Verifying database checksums... 3/30/2010 4:17:32 PM -- D: (100% processed) and G: (100% processed) 3/30/2010 4:17:32 PM -- Performance logging ends. 3/30/2010 4:17:32 PM -- C:\Exchange Jetstress\New Test\Stress\DBChecksum_2010_3_30_14_30_45.blg has 213 samples. 3/30/2010 4:17:34 PM -- C:\Exchange Jetstress\New Test\Stress\DBChecksum_2010_3_30_14_30_45.html is saved. 3/30/2010 4:17:34 PM -- Verifying log checksums... 3/30/2010 4:17:35 PM -- D:\Log1 (8 log(s) processed) and G:\Log2 (8 log(s) processed) 3/30/2010 4:17:35 PM -- C:\Exchange Jetstress\New Test\Stress\Stress_2010_3_29_14_24_58.blg has 5779 samples. 3/30/2010 4:17:35 PM -- Creating test report... 3/30/2010 4:18:23 PM -- Instance has 19.5 for. 3/30/2010 4:18:23 PM -- Instance has 2.3 for Log. 3/30/2010 4:18:23 PM -- Instance has 2.3 for Log. 3/30/2010 4:18:23 PM -- Instance has 19.3 for. 3/30/2010 4:18:23 PM -- Instance has 2.2 for Log. 3/30/2010 4:18:23 PM -- Instance has 2.2 for Log. 3/30/2010 4:18:23 PM -- Test has 0 Maximum Page Fault Stalls/sec. 3/30/2010 4:18:23 PM -- Test has 0 Page Fault Stalls/sec samples higher than 0. 3/30/2010 4:18:23 PM -- C:\Exchange Jetstress\New Test\Stress\Stress_2010_3_29_14_24_58.xml has 5757 samples queried. Test Result Report Checksum Statistics - All Seen pages Bad pages Correctable pages Wrong page-number pages File length / seconds taken D:\DB1\Jetstress edb M / 6406 sec G:\DB2\Jetstress edb M / 5876 sec (Sum) M / 6406 sec Disk Subsystem Performance (of checksum) LogicalDisk Avg. Disk sec/read Avg. Disk sec/write Disk /sec Disk /sec Avg. Disk /Read D: G: Memory System Performance (of checksum) Counter Minimum Maximum % Processor Time Available M Free System Page Table Entries Transition Pages RePurposed/sec Pool Nonpaged Pool Paged Test Log3/29/2010 2:24:53 PM -- Jetstress testing begins... 3/29/2010 2:24:53 PM -- Prepare testing begins...
16 3/29/2010 2:24:56 PM -- Attaching databases... 3/29/2010 2:24:56 PM -- Prepare testing ends. 3/29/2010 2:24:56 PM -- Dispatching transactions begins... 3/29/2010 2:24:56 PM -- cache settings: (minimum: 64.0 MB, maximum: MB) 3/29/2010 2:24:56 PM -- flush thresholds: (start: 5.1 MB, stop: 10.2 MB) 3/29/2010 2:24:58 PM -- read latency thresholds: (average: 20 msec/read, maximum: 200 msec/read). 3/29/2010 2:24:58 PM -- Log write latency thresholds: (average: 10 msec/write, maximum: 200 msec/write). 3/29/2010 2:24:59 PM -- Operation mix: Sessions 2, Inserts 40%, Deletes 20%, Replaces 5%, 35%, Lazy Commits 70%. 3/29/2010 2:24:59 PM -- Performance logging begins (interval: ms). 3/29/2010 2:24:59 PM -- Attaining prerequisites: 3/29/2010 2:30:28 PM -- \MSExchange (JetstressWin)\ Cache Size, Last: (lower bound: , upper bound: none) 3/30/2010 2:30:29 PM -- Performance logging ends. 3/30/2010 2:30:29 PM -- JetInterop batch transaction stats: and /30/2010 2:30:29 PM -- Dispatching transactions ends. 3/30/2010 2:30:29 PM -- Shutting down databases... 3/30/2010 2:30:45 PM -- Instance (complete) and Instance (complete) 3/30/2010 2:30:46 PM -- Performance logging begins (interval: ms). 3/30/2010 2:30:46 PM -- Verifying database checksums... 3/30/2010 4:17:32 PM -- D: (100% processed) and G: (100% processed) 3/30/2010 4:17:32 PM -- Performance logging ends. 3/30/2010 4:17:32 PM -- C:\Exchange Jetstress\New Test\Stress\DBChecksum_2010_3_30_14_30_45.blg has 213 samples. Appendix B: Performance Testing Performance Test Result Report Test Summary Overall Test Result Pass Machine Name EXCHANGE2010 Test Description Test Start Time 3/24/ :09:08 AM Test End Time 3/24/2010 7:34:45 PM Collection Start Time 3/24/2010 5:34:30 PM Collection End Time 3/24/2010 7:34:22 PM Jetstress Version Ese Version Operating System Windows Server (R) 2008 Enterprise Service Pack 2, v.659 ( ) Performance Log C:\Exchange Jetstress\New Test\TestExt6A\Performance_2010_3_24_17_29_31.blg C:\Exchange Jetstress\New Test\TestExt6A\DBChecksum_2010_3_24_19_34_45.blg Sizing and Throughput Achieved Transactional per Second Target Transactional per Second 75 Initial Size (bytes) Final Size (bytes) Files (Count) 2 Jetstress System Parameters Thread Count 2 (per database) Minimum Cache 64.0 MB Maximum Cache MB Insert Operations 40% Delete Operations 20% Replace Operations 5% Read Operations 35% Lazy Commits 70% Run Background Maintenance True Number of Copies per 2 Configuration Instance Log Path: D:\Log1 : D:\DB1\Jetstress edb Instance Log Path: G:\Log2 : G:\DB2\Jetstress edb
Technical white paper HP ProLiant DL380p Gen8 1000 mailbox 2GB mailbox resiliency Exchange 2010 storage solution Table of contents Overview 2 Disclaimer 2 Features of the tested solution 2 Solution description
An Oracle White Paper June 2012 Sun ZFS Storage 7420 Appliance 32,000 Mailbox Resiliency Exchange 2010 Storage Solution Tested with: ESRP Storage Version 3.0 Tested Date: 11/2010 Disclaimer This document
1 Hitachi Unified Storage VM Dynamically Provisioned 24,000 Mailbox Exchange 2013 Mailbox Resiliency Storage Solution Tested with: ESRP Storage Version 4.0 Test Date: July - August 2013 Month Year Notices
1 L Hitachi Unified Storage VM Dynamically Provisioned 120,000 Mailbox Exchange 2013 Mailbox Resiliency Storage Solution Tested with: ESRP Storage Version 4.0 Test Date: July - August 2013 Month Year Notices
Technical white paper HP MSA 2040 Storage 750 Mailbox Resiliency Exchange 2013 Storage Solution with Microsoft Hyper-V Virtualized Microsoft Exchange 2013 server deployment Table of contents Overview...
Performance Validation and Test Results for Microsoft Exchange Server 2010 Abstract The purpose of this white paper is to profile the performance of the EMC CLARiiON CX4-960 with Microsoft Exchange Server
Optimizing SQL Server Storage Performance with the PowerEdge R720 Choosing the best storage solution for optimal database performance Luis Acosta Solutions Performance Analysis Group Joe Noyola Advanced
Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 and Hyper-V high availability configuration on HP ProLiant BL680c G5 server blades Executive summary... 2 Introduction... 2 Exchange 2007 Hyper-V high availability configuration...
Deploying Microsoft Exchange Server 2010 on the Hitachi Adaptable Modular Storage 2500 Reference Architecture Guide By Patricia Brailey July 2010 Summary IT administrators need email solutions that provide
Technical Report Dell Exchange 2013 Reference Architecture for 500 to 20,000 Microsoft Users Reliable and affordable storage for your business Table of Contents 1 Overview... 1 2 Introduction... 2 3 Infrastructure
Dell SC Series Storage and Microsoft Exchange Server 2013 Best Practices Dell Engineering September 2015 A Dell Best Practices Guide Revisions Date October 2012 April 2013 September 2015 Description Initial
Oracle Database Deployments with EMC CLARiiON AX4 Storage Systems Applied Technology Abstract This white paper investigates configuration and replication choices for Oracle Database deployment with EMC
Best Practices for Deploying SSDs in a Microsoft SQL Server 2008 OLTP Environment with Dell EqualLogic PS-Series Arrays Database Solutions Engineering By Murali Krishnan.K Dell Product Group October 2009
Reference Architecture - Microsoft Exchange 2013 on Dell PowerEdge R730xd Reference Implementation for up to 8000 mailboxes Dell Global Solutions Engineering June 2015 A Dell Reference Architecture THIS
Silverton Consulting, Inc. StorInt Briefing Introduction In today s challenging data center environments, storage systems must supply continuous data availability, high input/output (I/O) performance and
OPTIMIZING EXCHANGE SERVER IN A TIERED STORAGE ENVIRONMENT WHITE PAPER NOVEMBER 2006 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Microsoft Exchange Server is a disk-intensive application that requires high speed storage to deliver
Dell EqualLogic Best Practices Series Sizing and Best Practices for Deploying Microsoft Exchange Server 2010 on VMware vsphere and Dell EqualLogic Storage A Dell Technical Whitepaper Ananda Sankaran Storage
Deploying Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 mailbox roles on VMware Infrastructure 3 using HP ProLiant servers and HP StorageWorks Executive summary...2 Target audience...2 Introduction...2 Disclaimer...3
Dell Compellent Storage Center Microsoft Exchange Server 2010 Best Practices Document revision Date Revision Comments 11/19/2009 A Draft 11/30/2009 B Initial Release 7/26/2010 C Technical Review/Updates
MICROSOFT EXCHANGE 2003 best practices BEST PRACTICES - DATA STORAGE SETUP TABLE OF CONTENTS E-mail has become a business critical communication tool 3 Build a disaster recovery solution with VSS and Data
Microsoft Exchange Server 3 Deployment Considerations for Small and Medium Businesses A Dell PowerEdge server can provide an effective platform for Microsoft Exchange Server 3. A team of Dell engineers
1 Deploying Microsoft Exchange Server 2010 on the Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform with Hitachi Dynamic Tiering Reference Architecture Guide By Jeff Chen May 2011 Month Year Feedback Hitachi Data Systems
Evaluation Report: Supporting Microsoft Exchange on the Lenovo S3200 Hybrid Array Evaluation report prepared under contract with Lenovo Executive Summary Love it or hate it, businesses rely on email. It
BlackBerry Enterprise Server for Microsoft Exchange Version: 5.0 Service Pack: 4 Performance Benchmarking Guide Published: 2015-01-13 SWD-20150113132750479 Contents 1 BlackBerry Enterprise Server for Microsoft
VMware vsphere 6 and Oracle Database Scalability Study Scaling Monster Virtual Machines TECHNICAL WHITE PAPER Table of Contents Executive Summary... 3 Introduction... 3 Test Environment... 3 Virtual Machine
EMC Backup and Recovery for Microsoft Exchange 2010 Enabled by EMC Unified Storage, EMC Data Domain, EMC NetWorker Plug-in for Exchange 2010, and Microsoft Hyper-V A Detailed Review EMC Information Infrastructure
Dell EqualLogic Best Practices Series Sizing and Best Practices for Deploying Microsoft Exchange Server 2010 on VMware vsphere and Dell EqualLogic Storage A Dell Technical Whitepaper Ananda Sankaran Storage
Agenda Enterprise Performance Factors Overall Enterprise Performance Factors Best Practice for generic Enterprise Best Practice for 3-tiers Enterprise Hardware Load Balancer Basic Unix Tuning Performance
MS EXCHANGE SERVER ACCELERATION IN VMWARE ENVIRONMENTS WITH SANRAD VXL Dr. Allon Cohen Eli Ben Namer firstname.lastname@example.org 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SANRAD VXL provides enterprise class acceleration for virtualized
Analysis of VDI Storage Performance During Bootstorm Introduction Virtual desktops are gaining popularity as a more cost effective and more easily serviceable solution. The most resource-dependent process
1 Deploying SQL Server 2008 R2 with Hyper-V on the Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform Reference Architecture Guide By Rick Andersen October 2010 Month Year Feedback Hitachi Data Systems welcomes your feedback.
T E C H N I C A L B R I E F The Benefits of Virtualizing Aciduisismodo Microsoft SQL Dolore Server Eolore in Dionseq Hitachi Storage Uatummy Environments Odolorem Vel Leveraging Microsoft Hyper-V By Heidi
Virtualizing Microsoft SQL Server 2008 on the Hitachi Adaptable Modular Storage 2000 Family Using Microsoft Hyper-V Implementation Guide By Eduardo Freitas and Ryan Sokolowski February 2010 Summary Deploying
Accelerate SQL Server 2014 AlwaysOn Availability Groups with Seagate Nytro Flash Accelerator Cards Technology Paper Authored by: Mark Pokorny, Database Engineer, Seagate Overview SQL Server 2014 provides
TECHNICAL NOTE VMware Infrastructure 3 SAN Conceptual and Design Basics VMware ESX Server can be used in conjunction with a SAN (storage area network), a specialized high speed network that connects computer
1 Deploying a 48,000-user Exchange Server 2010 Environment with Hitachi Compute Blade 2000 and Hitachi Adaptable Modular Storage 2500 Reference Architecture Guide Leo Nguyen April 2011 Month Year Feedback
Using Synology SSD Technology to Enhance System Performance Synology Inc. Synology_SSD_Cache_WP_ 20140512 Table of Contents Chapter 1: Enterprise Challenges and SSD Cache as Solution Enterprise Challenges...
The Methodology Behind the Dell SQL Server Advisor Tool Database Solutions Engineering By Phani MV Dell Product Group October 2009 Executive Summary The Dell SQL Server Advisor is intended to perform capacity
DELL Dell Microsoft Windows Server 2008 Hyper-V TM Reference Architecture VIRTUALIZATION SOLUTIONS ENGINEERING September 2008 1 THIS WHITE PAPER IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY, AND MAY CONTAIN TYPOGRAPHICAL
Lab Validation Report IBM System Storage DS3500 Express Mixed Workload Performance with Application Aware Data Management By Brian Garrett February 2011 Lab Validation: IBM System Storage DS3500 Express
This dispatch covers Microsoft Exchange Solution Review Program (ESRP) 1 V3.0 for Exchange 2010. There have been a large number of submissions this past quarter with at least ten new ones in the over 5K
Optimizing LTO Backup Performance July 19, 2011 Written by: Ash McCarty Contributors: Cedrick Burton Bob Dawson Vang Nguyen Richard Snook Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction... 3 2.0 Host System Configuration...
Performance Advantages for Oracle Database At a Glance This Technical Brief illustrates that even for smaller online transaction processing (OLTP) databases, the Sun 8Gb/s Fibre Channel Host Bus Adapter
Microsoft Exchange Server 2010 storage overview and HP storage options Technical white paper Table of contents Exchange Server 2010 storage is all about options... 2 Exchange technology changes... 2 Microsoft
EMC XTREMIO AND MICROSOFT EXCHANGE DATABASES Preliminary findings: Efficiency of various production samples Market overview and adoption of all-flash arrays Techniques for estimating efficiency EMC Solutions
EMC Backup and Recovery for Microsoft SQL Server 2008 Enabled by EMC Celerra Unified Storage Applied Technology Abstract This white paper describes various backup and recovery solutions available for SQL
Microsoft Dynamics NAV 2013 R2 Sizing Guidelines for On-Premises Single Tenant Deployments July 2014 White Paper Page 1 Contents 3 Sizing Recommendations Summary 3 Workloads used in the tests 3 Transactional
Technical white paper HP D6000 Disk Enclosure 4,000 Mailbox Resiliency Exchange 2013 storage solution Using RAIDless JBOD disks Table of contents Overview... 2 Disclaimer... 2 Features of the tested solution...
Parallels Cloud Storage White Paper Performance Benchmark Results www.parallels.com Table of Contents Executive Summary... 3 Architecture Overview... 3 Key Features... 4 No Special Hardware Requirements...
Best Practices Guide for Exchange 2010 and Tegile Systems Zebi Hybrid Storage Array Version 2.0: May 2013 Contents The Exchange Story... 1 Zebi Metadata Accelerated Storage System (MASS) The Ultimate in
EMC Backup and Recovery for Microsoft Exchange 2007 Enabled by EMC CLARiiON, EMC NetWorker, and EMC Avamar Proven Solution Guide Copyright 2010 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. Published July 2010
1 Deploying Microsoft SQL Server 2008 R2 with Logical Partitioning on the Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform with Hitachi Dynamic Tiering Reference Architecture Guide By Eduardo Freitas May 2011 Month Year
Integrating Data Protection Manager with StorTrends itx INTEGRATING DATA PROTECTION MANAGER WITH STORTRENDS ITX 2 1. Introduction 2 2. Test Environment 2 Requirements 2 3. Setting up the Application Servers
Intel RAID Controllers Best Practices White Paper April, 2008 Enterprise Platforms and Services Division - Marketing Revision History Date Revision Number April, 2008 1.0 Initial release. Modifications
High Performance Tier Implementation Guideline A Dell Technical White Paper PowerVault MD32 and MD32i Storage Arrays THIS WHITE PAPER IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY, AND MAY CONTAIN TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS
White Paper MS Exchange Server Acceleration Using virtualization to dramatically maximize user experience for Microsoft Exchange Server Allon Cohen, PhD Scott Harlin OCZ Storage Solutions, Inc. A Toshiba
EMC Solutions for Microsoft Exchange 2007 Virtualized Exchange 2007 Local Continuous Replication EMC Commercial Solutions Group Corporate Headquarters Hopkinton, MA 01748-9103 1-508-435-1000 www.emc.com
Dell Virtualization Solution for Microsoft SQL Server 2012 using PowerEdge R820 This white paper discusses the SQL server workload consolidation capabilities of Dell PowerEdge R820 using Virtualization.
Using Synology SSD Technology to Enhance System Performance Synology Inc. Synology_WP_ 20121112 Table of Contents Chapter 1: Enterprise Challenges and SSD Cache as Solution Enterprise Challenges... 3 SSD
Dell Migration Manager for Email Archives 7.3 SQL Best Practices 2016 Dell Inc. All rights reserved. This product is protected by U.S. and international copyright and intellectual property laws. Dell and
1 of 22 5/1/2011 5:34 PM Storage and SQL Server capacity planning and configuration (SharePoint Server 2010) Updated: January 20, 2011 This article describes how to plan for and configure the storage and
WHITE PAPER MICROSOFT EXCHANGE 2007 WITH ETERNUS STORAGE ETERNUS STORAGE Table of Contents 1 SCOPE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Deploy Hitachi Unified Compute Platform Select for Microsoft Exchange Server 2010 8,000-user Exchange Server 2010 Environment with Hitachi Compute Blade 2000 and Hitachi Adaptable Modular Storage 2300
Evaluation Report: Accelerating SQL Server Database Performance with the Lenovo Storage S3200 SAN Array Evaluation report prepared under contract with Lenovo Executive Summary Even with the price of flash
Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI) made Easy HOW-TO Preface: Desktop virtualization can increase the effectiveness of information technology (IT) teams by simplifying how they configure and deploy endpoint
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.