Exchange partion size sbs2003 vs sbs2008

I know there is no "right " answere on this, but I need a feel for realative
needs of exchange 07 vs 03.

1. I understand that a 3 partition minimum setup is still suggested on
SBS2008 I.E. os/exchange/everything esle.

2. This customer has a 50 gig Exchange partition on SBS2003 and in 3 years
has only used 10 gig of it. In the move to SBS2008 with Exchange2007 will the
50gig partition still be ok, or will 07 take up considerably more room?

So if you have a seperate partition for exchange and the program itself runs
on C: , what goes on the "exchange partition"?

"Cris Hanna [SBS - MVP]" wrote:

> Well with SBS 2008, Exchange Program files WILL be on the C Drive...so make sure that partition has plenty of room...60GB is the min..I personally just put in RAID 1 160 drives and let the whole thing be used for the OS
>
> So most likely 50 GB will be ok..but unlike SBS 2003 and Exchange 2003 which had a 75GB limit...Exchange 2007 has the ability for up to 5 storage groups and each one is virtually unlimited.
>
> --
> Cris Hanna [SBS - MVP] (since 1997)
> Co-Contributor, Windows Small Business Server 2008 Unleashed
> http://www.amazon.com/Windows-Small-...7269967&sr=8-1
> Owner, CPU Services, Belleville, IL
> A Microsoft Registered Partner
> ------------------------------------
> MVPs do not work for Microsoft
> Please do not submit questions directly to me.
>
> "Joe#2" <> wrote in message news:3CB19C7B-146F-4431-9DCC-...
> I know there is no "right " answere on this, but I need a feel for realative
> needs of exchange 07 vs 03.
>
> 1. I understand that a 3 partition minimum setup is still suggested on
> SBS2008 I.E. os/exchange/everything esle.
>
> 2. This customer has a 50 gig Exchange partition on SBS2003 and in 3 years
> has only used 10 gig of it. In the move to SBS2008 with Exchange2007 will the
> 50gig partition still be ok, or will 07 take up considerably more room?

The Exchange database files.

"Joe#2" <> wrote in message
newsD7A19CB-B3B4-4CF9-92AC-...
> So if you have a seperate partition for exchange and the program itself
> runs
> on C: , what goes on the "exchange partition"?
>
> "Cris Hanna [SBS - MVP]" wrote:
>
>> Well with SBS 2008, Exchange Program files WILL be on the C Drive...so
>> make sure that partition has plenty of room...60GB is the min..I
>> personally just put in RAID 1 160 drives and let the whole thing be used
>> for the OS
>>
>> So most likely 50 GB will be ok..but unlike SBS 2003 and Exchange 2003
>> which had a 75GB limit...Exchange 2007 has the ability for up to 5
>> storage groups and each one is virtually unlimited.
>>
>> --
>> Cris Hanna [SBS - MVP] (since 1997)
>> Co-Contributor, Windows Small Business Server 2008 Unleashed
>> http://www.amazon.com/Windows-Small-...7269967&sr=8-1
>> Owner, CPU Services, Belleville, IL
>> A Microsoft Registered Partner
>> ------------------------------------
>> MVPs do not work for Microsoft
>> Please do not submit questions directly to me.
>>
>> "Joe#2" <> wrote in message
>> news:3CB19C7B-146F-4431-9DCC-...
>> I know there is no "right " answere on this, but I need a feel for
>> realative
>> needs of exchange 07 vs 03.
>>
>> 1. I understand that a 3 partition minimum setup is still suggested on
>> SBS2008 I.E. os/exchange/everything esle.
>>
>> 2. This customer has a 50 gig Exchange partition on SBS2003 and in 3
>> years
>> has only used 10 gig of it. In the move to SBS2008 with Exchange2007
>> will the
>> 50gig partition still be ok, or will 07 take up considerably more room?

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 10:09:42 +0100, "Brian Cryer" <not.here@localhost>
wrote:

>
>"Joe#2" <> wrote in message
>news:3CB19C7B-146F-4431-9DCC-...
>>I know there is no "right " answere on this, but I need a feel for
>>realative
>> needs of exchange 07 vs 03.
>>
>> 1. I understand that a 3 partition minimum setup is still suggested on
>> SBS2008 I.E. os/exchange/everything esle.
>>
>> 2. This customer has a 50 gig Exchange partition on SBS2003 and in 3 years
>> has only used 10 gig of it. In the move to SBS2008 with Exchange2007 will
>> the
>> 50gig partition still be ok, or will 07 take up considerably more room?
>
>If you were using separate physical drives then I could understand this
>approach, but partitioning a disk has never seemed like a good idea to me:
>1. how often do people get the sizing wrong and then we have posts asking
>about resizing partitions and 2. by partitioning you are introducing a
>performance hit - because you are now guaranteeing that the disk head has to
>move further when retrieving files from different partitions.
>
>Don't wish to start a flame war, but do think about whether partitoning
>gives you any real benefits.

I have never, EVER partitioned discs, on servers or desktops, for a
variety of reasons, including the ones you mention. if I get a server
from Dell with a preinstalled OS, the first thing I do is repartition
it and reinstall the OS.

Some people partition "OS" and "Data" - but why? What's wrong with
putting all the data into shared folders (the "Company Shared Folders"
approach). And if it's for backup purposes then what about all the
lovely "data" that's actually held on the OS partition (in the
registry).

I'm in complete agreement with you. Separate physical discs have
benefits for performance etc, but partitions are nothing more than a
nuisance.

My 2p.....


Jim

Separate drives are MUCH better, but in the MS world you really should have at least a system and a Data partition.

System Partition (OS Only), Data Partition (Everything else).
There are benefits; You can't compress the system partition or increase it's size/span drives, etc. (w/o 3rd party software) do Quotas, Shadow Copy, etc.

Still best to have more than one drive, but in the SMB market it's very often 2 drives mirrored and partitioned to System and Data. Cheapest method for FT. Small companies don't notice the performance hit, bigger companies don't care about the extra drives.

So, yes there is still a use for that config for us small companies.

Randy

> On Wednesday, August 18, 2010 10:17 AM Joe#2 wrote:

> I know there is no "right " answere on this, but I need a feel for realative
> needs of exchange 07 vs 03.
>
> 1. I understand that a 3 partition minimum setup is still suggested on
> SBS2008 I.E. os/exchange/everything esle.
>
> 2. This customer has a 50 gig Exchange partition on SBS2003 and in 3 years
> has only used 10 gig of it. In the move to SBS2008 with Exchange2007 will the
> 50gig partition still be ok, or will 07 take up considerably more room?


>> On Wednesday, August 18, 2010 10:41 AM Cris Hanna [SBS - MVP] wrote:

>> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>>
>> ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01CB3EB9.7EDDFB60
>> Content-Type: text/plain;
>> charset="utf-8"
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>
>> Well with SBS 2008, Exchange Program files WILL be on the C Drive...so =
>> make sure that partition has plenty of room...60GB is the min..I =
>> personally just put in RAID 1 160 drives and let the whole thing be used =
>> for the OS
>>
>> So most likely 50 GB will be ok..but unlike SBS 2003 and Exchange 2003 =
>> which had a 75GB limit...Exchange 2007 has the ability for up to 5 =
>> storage groups and each one is virtually unlimited.
>>
>> --=20
>> Cris Hanna [SBS - MVP] (since 1997)
>> Co-Contributor, Windows Small Business Server 2008 Unleashed
>> http://www.amazon.com/Windows-Small-...d/dp/06723295=
>> 73/ref=3Dpd_bbs_sr_1?ie=3DUTF8&s=3Dbooks&qid=3D121726 9967&sr=3D8-1
>> Owner, CPU Services, Belleville, IL
>> A Microsoft Registered Partner
>> ------------------------------------
>> MVPs do not work for Microsoft
>> Please do not submit questions directly to me.
>>
>> I know there is no "right " answere on this, but I need a feel for =
>> realative=20
>> needs of exchange 07 vs 03.
>>
>> 1. I understand that a 3 partition minimum setup is still suggested on =
>>
>> SBS2008 I.E. os/exchange/everything esle.
>>
>> 2. This customer has a 50 gig Exchange partition on SBS2003 and in 3 =
>> years=20
>> has only used 10 gig of it. In the move to SBS2008 with Exchange2007 =
>> will the=20
>> 50gig partition still be ok, or will 07 take up considerably more room?
>> ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01CB3EB9.7EDDFB60
>> Content-Type: text/html;
>> charset="utf-8"
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>
>> =EF=BB=BF<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
>> <HTML><HEAD>
>> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dutf-8">
>> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6000.17080" name=3DGENERATOR>
>> <STYLE></STYLE>
>> </HEAD>
>> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
>> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Well with SBS 2008, Exchange Program =
>> files WILL be=20
>> on the C Drive...so make sure that partition has plenty of room...60GB =
>> is the=20
>> min..I personally just put in RAID 1 160 drives and let the whole thing =
>> be used=20
>> for the OS</FONT></DIV>
>> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
>> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>So most likely 50 GB will be ok..but =
>> unlike SBS=20
>> 2003 and Exchange 2003 which had a 75GB limit...Exchange 2007 has the =
>> ability=20
>> for up to 5 storage groups and each one is virtually =
>> unlimited.</FONT></DIV>
>> <DIV><BR>-- <BR>Cris Hanna [SBS - MVP] (since 1997)<BR>Co-Contributor, =
>> Windows=20
>> Small Business Server 2008 Unleashed<BR><A=20
>> href=3D"http://www.amazon.com/Windows-Small-Business-Server-Unleashed/dp/=
>> 0672329573/ref=3Dpd_bbs_sr_1?ie=3DUTF8&amp;s=3Dbooks&amp;qid= 3D1217269967=
>> &amp;sr=3D8-1">http://www.amazon.com/Windows-Small-...Server-Unleas=
>> hed/dp/0672329573/ref=3Dpd_bbs_sr_1?ie=3DUTF8&amp;s=3Dbooks&amp;qid= 3D121=
>> 7269967&amp;sr=3D8-1</A><BR>Owner,=20
>> CPU Services, Belleville, IL<BR>A Microsoft Registered=20
>> Partner<BR>------------------------------------<BR>MVPs do not work for=20
>> Microsoft<BR>Please do not submit questions directly to me.<BR></DIV>
>> <BLOCKQUOTE=20
>> style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
>> BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
>> <DIV>"Joe#2" &lt;<A=20
>> =
>> href=3D"private.php?do=newpm&u=">Joe =
>> .com</A>&gt;=20
>> wrote in message <A=20
>> =
>> 19C7B-146F-4431-9DCC-</A>...</DIV>I=20
>> know there is no "right " answere on this, but I need a feel for =
>> realative=20
>> <BR>needs of exchange 07 vs 03.<BR><BR>1. I understand that a 3 =
>> partition=20
>> minimum setup is still suggested on <BR>SBS2008 I.E. =
>> os/exchange/everything=20
>> esle.<BR><BR>2. This customer has a 50 gig Exchange partition on =
>> SBS2003 and=20
>> in 3 years <BR>has only used 10 gig of it. In the move to SBS2008 with =
>>
>> Exchange2007 will the <BR>50gig partition still be ok, or will 07 take =
>> up=20
>> considerably more room?</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
>>
>> ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01CB3EB9.7EDDFB60--


>>> On Wednesday, August 18, 2010 12:44 PM Joe#2 wrote:

>>> So if you have a seperate partition for exchange and the program itself runs
>>> on C: , what goes on the "exchange partition"?
>>>
>>> "Cris Hanna [SBS - MVP]" wrote:


>>>> On Wednesday, August 18, 2010 1:10 PM SteveB wrote:

>>>> The Exchange database files.


>>>>> On Friday, August 20, 2010 5:09 AM Brian Cryer wrote:

>>>>> If you were using separate physical drives then I could understand this
>>>>> approach, but partitioning a disk has never seemed like a good idea to me:
>>>>> 1. how often do people get the sizing wrong and then we have posts asking
>>>>> about resizing partitions and 2. by partitioning you are introducing a
>>>>> performance hit - because you are now guaranteeing that the disk head has to
>>>>> move further when retrieving files from different partitions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't wish to start a flame war, but do think about whether partitoning
>>>>> gives you any real benefits.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Brian Cryer
>>>>> http://www.cryer.co.uk/brian


>>>>>> On Friday, August 20, 2010 8:18 AM Jim wrote:

>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have never, EVER partitioned discs, on servers or desktops, for a
>>>>>> variety of reasons, including the ones you mention. if I get a server
>>>>>> from Dell with a preinstalled OS, the first thing I do is repartition
>>>>>> it and reinstall the OS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some people partition "OS" and "Data" - but why? What's wrong with
>>>>>> putting all the data into shared folders (the "Company Shared Folders"
>>>>>> approach). And if it is for backup purposes then what about all the
>>>>>> lovely "data" that is actually held on the OS partition (in the
>>>>>> registry).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am in complete agreement with you. Separate physical discs have
>>>>>> benefits for performance etc, but partitions are nothing more than a
>>>>>> nuisance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My 2p.....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jim


>>>>>> Submitted via EggHeadCafe
>>>>>> Microsoft .NET DataBase Access For Beginners
>>>>>> http://www.eggheadcafe.com/training-...y-Samples.aspx