Hello - We're slowly moving from E2k3 to E2k7. We'd like to set up SCR as we go; seems simpler. One question we're interested in: How badly will perf be effected if we use one partition for both a server's 'original' transaction logs and for the Trans logs coming from an SCR source? I'll explain a bit more thoroughly - We will have 3 servers in a West Coast site, and 3 in an East Coast site. Each server in one site will have as its SCR target one of the servers in the opposite site, and will serve as a target for that server. - i.e. PacificSrvrA will have AtlanticSrvrA as an SCR target, while AtlanticSrvrA has PacificSrvrA as it's SCR target. - Same for each coast's SrvrB and SrvrC. Would performance be terribly effected if PacificSrvrA's "native" trans logs and the trans logs shipped over from AtlanticSrvrA in an SCR arrangement were on the same partition? Is it ok to house the two databases in the same manner? Any suggestions - and real world experience - would be very appreciated. Thanks!

Clarify: You want to know if theres any performance impact to SCR target server which also act as a mailbox server role, not a specific standby recovery server, right? Per my knowledge, replication between source and target is simply the copy of log files. Out of question, the I/O cost must be increased on the source and target in this scenario. But it has also been dramatically reduced at least 78% compared with former release when it came in exchange 2007 SP1 Notes: There might be some risks if both source and targets log files have been put in the same partition or same hard disk. It would be safer to separate them to different disk

Thank you for the helpful input, James. That's what I expected. I was hoping for someone to pop in with some real-world numbers - any takers?