VMware Cloud Community
NeelR
Contributor
Contributor

Virtualizing Exchange for 13000 users

Wondering if anyone is virtualizing their Exchange?

We want to go ahead with this and were wondering what type of hardware people are using?

We were thinking of having 1 ESX Host dedicated for the Exchange VM. We have about 13000 users.

We are going with Exchange 2003 as of right now, not sure why but I dont make that call.

Disk layout would be

LOG1/MDB1 - VM_1.vmdk

LOG2/MDB2 - VM_2.vmdk

...etc for the remaining disks.

Anyone done something similar? Also we were thinking of just regular VMFS, not RDM. However in previous years I thought it was recommeneded that RDM be used for Exchange. Any thoughts?

Cheers,

Message was edited by: oreeh

Reason: Shortened the title

Oliver Reeh

VMware Communities User Moderator

Reply
0 Kudos
8 Replies
mcowger
Immortal
Immortal

If you are going to dedicate 1 host to exchange, why virtualize it?

Second, how many disks will you have behind those VMDKs? With 13000 users I'd hope that you have at least 13000 IOPs capabilty or at least 130 disks....






--Matt

VCP, vExpert, Unix Geek

--Matt VCDX #52 blog.cowger.us
Reply
0 Kudos
NeelR
Contributor
Contributor

We want to have all new servers virtualized, we're trying to make it a Standard. Plus I belive the dedicated part was originally brought up by the Exchange Admins, once we can prove the host is being under utilized we can then put other vm's on it.

So far we only have 5 disks!!

Log1/MDB1 - 70gb/410gb - .vmdk

Log2/MDB2 - 70/410 - _1.vmdk

Log3/MDB3 - 70/410 - _2.vmdk

Log4/MDB4 - 70/410 - _3.vmdk

Log5/MDB5 - 70/410 - _4.vmdk

This is why I asked about RDM's and Exchange, heard that was better due to high I/O.

Reply
0 Kudos
mcowger
Immortal
Immortal

VMFS and RDM have about the same performance according to all the papers, tests and benchmarks.

5 disks is NOT enough to run your number of users.you need 20X the disks.






--Matt

VCP, vExpert, Unix Geek

--Matt VCDX #52 blog.cowger.us
Reply
0 Kudos
msemon1
Expert
Expert

Our environment has 1250 users. Would strongly recommend using Exchange 2007 if you going to virtualize since that will be easier to upgrade to Exchange 2010 in the future. We are using Exchange 2007 with CCR clustering. I agree with the others in that you are going to need more disks for storage groups. If your users are like ours they create a *&!@ load of email. Our storage group layout looks somthing like this:

C: OS, Exchange 30GB VMDK

😧 Page file 20GB VMDK

E: Storage Group1 Logs 50GB RDM

F: Storage Group1 Data 100GB RDM

G: Storage Group2 Logs 50B RDM

H: Storage Group2 Data 100GB RDM

Create as many storage groups as you need. Consider mount point if you are going to run out of drive letters. You can use VMDK or RDM's. Size carefully for growth. Our servers have 20 RDM's attached for storage!

Mike

Reply
0 Kudos
NeelR
Contributor
Contributor

In test we have 39 disks in our Filer, so when we create a Lun whether it be 1GB or 500GB's it is spread across all 39 disks.

It is the same in prod, however I think we only have 25 disks in the 1 aggregate.

Do I still need to worry about how many VMDK's I need? I should be OK to do 1 vmdK for 410GB right?

By Creating more VMDK's do I just make the VMDK's smaller? Like as of right now we are only in need of 5 x 410GB MDB drives.

So should I create 10 x 205MDB drives?

Reply
0 Kudos
msemon1
Expert
Expert

Look at it from an IOPS and DR scenario. You will get better performance if you break this into smaller storage groups and lessen your exposure. The reason we broke it down into smaller units was because 100GB's I believe is I believe the limit on a storage group. Each RDM corresponds to a a LUN

number such as

RDM 1 (Hard disk 3) vmhba1:0:2:0

RDM 2 (Hard disk 4) vmhba1:0:3:0

RDM 3 (hard disk 5) vmhba1:0:4:0

Reply
0 Kudos
NeelR
Contributor
Contributor

But the IOPS is from a physical standpoint. One 100GB drive spread across 30 + disk, or one 400GB drive spread across 30 disks really matter?

Reply
0 Kudos
msemon1
Expert
Expert

Over 30 disks 100GB vs 400GB probably does not matter. Our SAN configuration is different. We have RAID 5 sets configured with between 5-7 drives.

What kind of RAID configuration do you have on SAN?

Reply
0 Kudos