1 / 19

NetApp vs. EMC for Microsoft Exchange

NetApp vs. EMC for Microsoft Exchange. Last updated: Aug2006. Agenda. EMC Microsoft Exchange: EMC Solution Areas Sales Strategy, Positioning, Tactics Offerings Storage Administrator for Exchange Replication Manager (ERM) Configuration Example Questions to Ask EMC Notable Best Practices

keala
Download Presentation

NetApp vs. EMC for Microsoft Exchange

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NetApp vs. EMCfor Microsoft Exchange Last updated: Aug2006

  2. Agenda • EMC Microsoft Exchange: • EMC Solution Areas • Sales Strategy, Positioning, Tactics • Offerings • Storage Administrator for Exchange • Replication Manager (ERM) • Configuration Example • Questions to Ask EMC • Notable Best Practices • Why NetApp vs. EMC? • NetApp Win Against EMC for Exchange • Resources

  3. SAN SAN SAN EMC Microsoft Exchange Solution Areas Note: EMC array options include CLARiiON, (Symmetrix, Celerra not shown), and Centera Consolidation Migration Outlookclients Assessment Services Validation Consolidated Exchange servers BeginMigrationProject Migration Complete Time Design Migration / Implementation Services • Simplify Consolidation • Storage consolidation for lower cost • Improve Exchange-storage usage • Reduce number of Exchange servers • Eliminate distributed servers • Centralize backup and restore • Simplify Exchange Migration • Assessment and Design Services to optimize Exchange environments • Implementation Services to assist with migration from Exchange 5.5 to 2003 Exchange Databases Backup/Restore Archive/Compliance • Simplify Archive • Messages are automatically moved to different tiers of storage based on policy • Drastically reduce amount of production storage • Eliminates the need to create .pst files • User mailboxes virtually “unlimited” in size Simplify Compliance • Ensures authenticity, integrity, and longevity • Centera ensures that the most stringent compliance requirements can be met Exchange servers Backup /archive server Exchange archive • Simplify Backup & Restore • Nondisruptive “instant split” of production database using Replication Manager/SE • Replica retained for fastmailbox recovery • Reduce recovery times • Backup to tape run off replica with no impact to production Centralized Backup & Restore EMC Centera Exchange Databases Replicas CLARiiON ATA Exchange production

  4. EMC’s Exchange Positioning The Position: Promises to simplify, improve productivity, cost savings,and deployment of Exchange Server 2003 via networked storagesolutions with a tiered storage approach and service level optionsto manage the information lifecycle of a customer’s Exchange environment.

  5. EMC Exchange Sales Pitch and Tactics • EMC Sales/Marketing Pitch • Microsoft uses EMC storage for their Exchange environment • Long-term Microsoft partnership • If you can’t beat NetApp value – give it away! Well Almost… • Reality • EMC solutions require over 70% more disk capacity than NetApp to provide near-same data protection levels • Mixed RAID offering only - no double parity RAID – limited data protection • Extensive Professional Services required throughout • All EMC recovery solutions are limited to Clones only – in most scenarios • Not listed in MS Exchange solution Reviewed Program (ESRP) for Storage

  6. EMC Exchange Offerings Note: EMC array options include CLARiiON, Symmetrix, Celerra, and Centera • SnapView Integration Module for Exchange • Simplified, non-disruptive backup and automated recovery for CLARiiON • TimeFinder Exchange Integration Module (TEIM) • Simplified, non-disruptive backup and recovery for DMX • EMC Replication Manager (ERM) (CLARiiON, Celerra, DMX) • Automated management of disk-based replicas for applications running on Windows Server 2003, including Oracle and SQL Server • GeoSpan (DMX) • Geographically dispersed cluster solution integrated between MSCS and Symmetrix Remote Data Facility (SRDF) • VisualSRM (storage independent) • File-level monitoring, reporting, and browsing with drill-down, and folderwalking for all Exchange, Oracle, SQL, and SAP applications - can be used to locate PST issues; remind users of local PST policies, and delete them if required • NetWorker PowerSnap (storage independent) • Policy-based management to administer snapshots in NetWorker, schedule, create, retain, and delete snapshots by policy for Exchange, Oracle, SQL, and SAP • EmailXtender, EmailXaminer base/Archive Edition (storage independent) • Oracle backup, archive, text search, monitoring and compliance insurance • EMC Centera (content addressed storage) • Content authenticity for e-mail archive data cost effectively and intelligently managing all Exchange information from creation to archiving and disposal

  7. EMC ILM and Microsoft Exchange EMC SLIDE

  8. Eases Exchange Migration Reduces Exchange migration time Simplifies Exchange Storage Administration Focus on managing Exchange, not storage Recovers Quickly from Exchange server failures A lower-cost alternative to clustering EMC Storage Administrator for Exchange Limited Features - long on Sales & Marketing Spin $715 USD (AX version) Exchange plug-in that consolidates storage on CLARiiON arrays hosting up to 3,000 mailboxes *Storage Administrator/Exchange base pricing for AX100 as of April 28, 2006. NOT 3,000 mailboxes

  9. Replica1 Replica2 Replica3 Replica4 Exchange on EMC DMX, CX, AX, NS, NSX, … EMC Replication Manager/SE Replication-management solution leveraging Microsoft’s VSS (Volume Shadowcopy Services) technology for CLARiiONusers with SnapView & SAN Copy in Windows environments – Max 8 clones/snapshots per array EMC Replication Manager/SE for Celerra Yet another replication-management solution leveraging Microsoft's VSS technology for Celerra users with Celerra SnapSure iSCSI EMC Replication Manager/Local Ditto… but for Symmetrix DMX users via TimeFinder, SnapView replicas, SAN Copy, HP StorageWorks clones, and Microsoft’s VSS with rapid backup and restore; no impact to production server – Max 8 clones/snapshots per array Note: Clone - 100% copy of source LUN, Snapshot - 15-20% of source LUN, Replica (snapshot or clone, read/writeable)

  10. EMC Exchange Layout Example DAE 9 DAE 8 DAE 7 (3+3) example DAE 6 DAE 5 DAE 4 DAE 3 DAE 2 DAE 1 DAE 0 12 14 5 6 11 7 8 13 4 9 0 10 1 2 3 Note: How do you expand this configuration? What about changing the layout? HS Clones for EXCH2 RAID 5 (4+1) 146GB 10K HS Clones for EXCH1 RAID 5 (4+1) 146GB 10K Clones for EXCH3 RAID 5 (4+1) 146GB 10K HS EXCH3Logs EXCH1SG 1 & 2 RAID 1/0 (3+3)73GB 15K EXCH1SG 1 & 2 RAID 1/0 (3+3)73GB 15K EXCH1SG 1 & 2 RAID 1/0 (3+3)73GB 15K HS EXCH2Logs EXCH1SG 1 & 2 RAID 1/0 (3+3)73GB 15K EXCH1SG 1 & 2 RAID 1/0 (3+3)73GB 15K EXCH1SG 1 & 2 RAID 1/0 (3+3)73GB 15K EXCH1Logs Example 3 Disk CLARiiON for Exchange Layout Design per “EMC CLARiiON Storage Solutions Microsoft Exchange 2003 Best Practices – Storage Configuration Guidelines”

  11. QUESTIONS TO ASK EMC EMC FUD: EMC says their clones are safer and more complete because they are 100% copies on separate disks Q. Why such small RAID groups? i.e. RAID 1/0 (3+3) and RAID 5 (4+1) A. More disk in a RAID group = higher risk there will be loss of data Q. What is the performance impact using SnapView to create copies of Exchange logs and checkpoints? A. COFW will occur (as required) once every sixteen 4KB writes resulting in transactions: • Taking 3-4 times as long • Reducing performance by 15-20%. • Typical Exchange environments with 33% writes and 67% reads can decrease performance to 40% per “EMC CLARiiON Storage Solutions Microsoft Exchange 2003 Best Practices – Storage Configuration Guidelines”

  12. QUESTIONS TO ASK EMC Q. What impact does MirrorView/S (synchronous) array to array replication have on CLARiiON arrays? A. 50% degradation in performance for CX500 and 25% degradation in performance for CX700 – do the math… Q. How does EMC tune Exchange for performance? A. It’s all about sacrifices or that is: EMC Best Practices • RAID1/0 for performance = loss of 50% usable capacity • RAID1/0 = two physical I/O operations for each write (1 write to each mirrored disk - penalty of two • RAID 5 for large mailboxes and/or lower IOPS • RAID5 = four physical I/O operations for each write (2 reads to calc parity, one write for data, and one write for parity) per “EMC CLARiiON Storage Solutions Microsoft Exchange 2003 Best Practices – Storage Configuration Guidelines”

  13. Notable EMC Best Practices for Exchange • Configuring metaLUNs • Can add a level of complexity to an Exchange design • It is possible to overuse metaLUNs(whatever happened to “Simplifying Exchange” ?) • Snap-based replication is not an ideal backup method to use with Exchange for the following reasons: • COFW must be completed before allowing change to production data… • Avoid configuring Exchange database LUNs on the CLARiiON PSM (drives 0-2 of the first 5 OS drives)(drives 0-4 are for low I/O activity only) per “EMC CLARiiON Storage Solutions Microsoft Exchange 2003 Best Practices – Storage Configuration Guidelines” Pages 18, 22, and 25

  14. Why NetApp vs. EMC for Microsoft Exchange? NetApp The details NetApp EMC The details EMC Simplifying Storage Management for Exchange – NetApp is the “Market Leader”, EMC is just “in the market”.

  15. Why NetApp vs. EMC for Microsoft Exchange? NetApp The details NetApp EMC The details EMC More reasons why Customers choose NetApp vs. EMC for MS Exchange (and SQL Server)

  16. NetApp win over EMC (and HP) at Google • Head-to-head competitive evaluation (same data center) • EMC CLARiiON, HP EVA, NetApp FAS3050 • Brutal (and excruciating) evaluation criteria dreamed up by an EMC biased regional consulting firm • We came in LAST (found out late) and had to catch up • We won!

  17. A few details… • 4-node Win/Exch 2003 MSCS Exchange cluster, FCP, SnapMirror between two FAS3050c’s (DR) • Performance (lots), management, DR failover and failback • Why we won: • EMC could NOT complete the evaluation tasks and had to “re-tool” between every test • We “turned it on” and ran through the series of test in a real-world fashion (we were the only vendor that could get it done) • Relationship (improved as we went) helped Questions: jp@netapp.com

  18. Resources • NetApp and Microsoft Partnership(http://www.netapp.com/partners/microsoft/) • NetApp Microsoft Exchange Whitepapers • SnapManager 3.2 for MS Exchange (http://www.netapp.com/library/tr/3233.pdf) • Data Management for Exchange Servers(http://www.netapp.com/library/tr/3454.pdf) • Technology Validation of MS Exchange on iSCSI Storage – NetApp & Cisco (http://www.netapp.com/library/tr/3421.pdf) • Microsoft Validation of NetApp @ Microsoft.com • NetApp Exchange Solution Reviewed Program (ESRP) (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/exchange/2003/esrp.mspx)Microsoft Storage Partner Extranet(http://www.microsoftstoragepartners.com/SolutionShowcase/Showcase.aspx?Companyname=network appliance)

  19. SimplifyingData Management

More Related