We are in the process of migrating from Exchange 2003 to 2010 and I have a question regarding database setup before we start to migrate users. We have a iSCSI SAN as the back end data store for the servers. We were originally planning on having all databases on one SAN volume and assigning this to Windows (e.g. E: drive) but, due to the way the SAN backup software works, we discovered we had to seperate the volumes as the software would not distinguish between the individual databases when they were on the same drive. We have now set up individual volumes for each of the 12 mailbox databases we propose to use. Initially we were going to assign drive letters to each volume (E:, F: etc) but it was decided this could be cumbersome and limit us if we need more databases in future (unlikely I know). We are now using one drive letter which is acting as a store for 12 mount points which point to the relevant iSCSI LUN on the SAN. The LUNs are set up using SAN specific software. My question is, is this a supported configuration (mount points for databases) and does anyone foresee any problems in setting things up this way ? Also - we have only created 2 Log volumes and are sharing these over the 12 databases (i.e. 6 on each) but each database still has their own individual folder. Anyone see any issues with this, apart from obviously losing one volume will kill 6 sets of logs ? Thanks

Mount points is a best practice anyway these days, simply because the alphabet isn't long enough any more. By the way, it's not "the way the SAN backup software works". They all work that way. If you're going to do backups you always have the logs and databases on separate "disks"* so that you can lose the database, restore it and then replay the logs. It's VSS mandating that, not the SAN vendor. Exchange 2010 on DAS only supports that whole logs/stores on the same disk when you have at least three servers, each with a copy of the database. Use two mount points. one for databases and one for logs. Create one LUN for each database and another for each log set. All databases under one mount point and all logs under the other mount point. Mount points are fully supported. If you are a NetApp user you can contact me offline (marnold at netapp dot com) or otherwise contact your vendor or their partner. They all have specific best practices. All of them are 99% aligned to Microsoft best practices and simply lay on some technology specific benefits. *Obviously you won't see the actual disks so just assume I meant LUNs in this case. "jarweb" wrote in message news:d7dc77fc-3a42-42bf-a886-c21d9fd7d4ec... We are in the process of migrating from Exchange 2003 to 2010 and I have a question regarding database setup before we start to migrate users. We have a iSCSI SAN as the back end data store for the servers. We were originally planning on having all databases on one SAN volume and assigning this to Windows (e.g. E: drive) but, due to the way the SAN backup software works, we discovered we had to seperate the volumes as the software would not distinguish between the individual databases when they were on the same drive. We have now set up individual volumes for each of the 12 mailbox databases we propose to use. Initially we were going to assign drive letters to each volume (E:, F: etc) but it was decided this could be cumbersome and limit us if we need more databases in future (unlikely I know). We are now using one drive letter which is acting as a store for 12 mount points which point to the relevant iSCSI LUN on the SAN. The LUNs are set up using SAN specific software. My question is, is this a supported configuration (mount points for databases) and does anyone foresee any problems in setting things up this way ? Also - we have only created 2 Log volumes and are sharing these over the 12 databases (i.e. 6 on each) but each database still has their own individual folder. Anyone see any issues with this, apart from obviously losing one volume will kill 6 sets of logs ? Thanks Mark Arnold, Exchange MVP.

Hi Mark Thanks for that. Quite new to the SAN kit and even more so the software so wasn't sure if the issue we had with the backup was due to the Exchange or the SAN software. I realise we should have the logs and the databases on seperate volumes anyway, which we had. But when we had the databases on only one volume it looked like we couldn't back up only one database at a time. We could only do this when we had all the databases on seperate volumes on the filer. Using mount points isn't an issue so long as we know it's supported and not likely to come back and bite us later. Cheers

Hah. You said "Filer" There's a giveaway. Get your storage guys (or use your own NOW account) and get TR 3824. If you get trouble just email me and I'll send it to you. "jarweb" wrote in message news:a03e6487-0e8b-40a9-9496-ab90b9f94156... Hi Mark Thanks for that. Quite new to the SAN kit and even more so the software so wasn't sure if the issue we had with the backup was due to the Exchange or the SAN software. I realise we should have the logs and the databases on seperate volumes anyway, which we had. But when we had the databases on only one volume it looked like we couldn't back up only one database at a time. We could only do this when we had all the databases on seperate volumes on the filer. Using mount points isn't an issue so long as we know it's supported and not likely to come back and bite us later. Cheers Mark Arnold, Exchange MVP.

Thanks Mark. Having problems logging in just now but I'll try again later. Wasn't criticising the kit - far from it. Just want to make sure how we've set things up are OK before we move forward. Cheers

Oh, I know you weren't criticizing. It's good gear and the TR will help quite a bit. Enjoy. "jarweb" wrote in message news:4028a804-e57f-4720-8d53-f157732d99da... Thanks Mark. Having problems logging in just now but I'll try again later. Wasn't criticising the kit - far from it. Just want to make sure how we've set things up are OK before we move forward. Cheers Mark Arnold, Exchange MVP.

Mark Looking at your blog pages I see you work with/for Netapp. Don't suppose there's an idiot's guide to backing up & restoring Exchange 2010 with SnapManager around anywhere (apart from the 360 page SnapManager for Exchange admin guide) ? I need to be comfortable with the process before we move any live users onto the system. Scenarios we're most likely (but not exclusively) to see are mailbox (either full or partial) restores outwith the deleted item retention period, both for existing users and users who have been deleted from A.D. I can ask the guys who did the initial install but it looks like you've got a fair bit of experience with EX2010 on the Netapp filers. Thanks

I work for NetApp. If you contact me offline I can set up a session where we can talk through anything and everything for you. The BPG and IAG documents are pretty large. I want you to be 100% comfortable with the process so talking through scenario's would make sense. I pointed you at TR3824 which is available: http://media.netapp.com/documents/tr-3824.pdf "jarweb" wrote in message news:ab60c9b6-b77b-4a8b-a818-c9612b2d5194... Mark Looking at your blog pages I see you work with/for Netapp. Don't suppose there's an idiot's guide to backing up & restoring Exchange 2010 with SnapManager around anywhere (apart from the 360 page SnapManager for Exchange admin guide) ? I need to be comfortable with the process before we move any live users onto the system. Scenarios we're most likely (but not exclusively) to see are mailbox (either full or partial) restores outwith the deleted item retention period, both for existing users and users who have been deleted from A.D. I can ask the guys who did the initial install but it looks like you've got a fair bit of experience with EX2010 on the Netapp filers. Thanks Mark Arnold, Exchange MVP.

Sorry to hijack this thread, but I have a similar scenario (also with NetApp storage). I have read the PDF Mark linked to, and it recommends "separating Exchange database and transaction log files onto separate LUNs and separate volumes whenever possible". Does this mean that each database/log pair should be on seperate LUNs in the same volume (ie 2 databases = 2 volumes and 4 LUNs) or each database in it's own LUN in it's own volume and each log file set in it's own LUN in it's own volume (ie 2 databases = 4 volumes and 4 LUNs)? Thanks!