Video Screencast Help
Symantec to Separate Into Two Focused, Industry-Leading Technology Companies. Learn more.

FSA and SIS

Created: 12 Oct 2012 • Updated: 18 Oct 2012 | 4 comments
This issue has been solved. See solution.

Hello,

I have an EV 10.0.1 server which is currently used for Mailbox and Journaling archive and both are in one storage group and one vault store. I am in the process of introducing FSA and not sure if I should use the same vault store group with new vault store OR create a new vault store group.

I have gone through the "Planning guide" and have an idea about SIS within a group (shared . My question is what is the pros and cons of having in one group or a separate vault store group.
For what I know having the stores within a group you benefit the SIS to reduce disk space but then performance will be high.

Do I need to worry about SIS between mailbox and FSA archiving. Disk space is not much matter I am more concerns about performance or any other things that I am not aware things like indexing.M

My plan also soon or later will be using EV for Sahrepoint archiving.

I appreciate any advice on this.

 

Comments 4 CommentsJump to latest comment

Rob.Wilcox's picture

IMHO Sharing = good...

 

But with Exchange 2010 it would appear that companies like Microsoft are moving away from that paradigm.

 

The trickiest part with FSA data is that if you decide on one architecture to implement under EV, and decide to change at a later time it is hard.  So getting it right for your organisations need for today, and for 'tomorrow' is essential.  For mailbox archiving it's 'easier' because you can move the data around later.

 

You don't mention sizes of the 'estate'.  How many users, how many archives, what types of users, how much FSA etc....

EVRocks's picture

 Hi Rob,

We are on Exchange 2007. around 600 live mailboxes with just over 1000 archive accounts. Just over 5 TB of mailboxes archived data.

As for file servers we have a round 3 file servers with about 5-10 TB of data and initially we will be archiving old data so not everything. the policy is last modified is older than 2 years.

I have a separate LUNs for File archiving data so you are correct I need to get it right in the beginning.

Thanks

 

TonySterling's picture

My initial thoughts would be to have the one Vault Store Group to take advantage of OSIS.  There are a few variables that are going to come into play here, such as, what are your retention needs?

You might want to have a Solution Design refresh done and have the scoping tools ran so you can get some good numbers of what OSIS could do and what your storage growth will look like.

Regards,

Tony

SOLUTION
EVRocks's picture

Hi Tony,

Yes it was me on the linkedin group the famouse EVRocks. it seems that we are everywhere... 

what would be the advantage of having it on a separate vault store group. My consern would be performance and currentley there will be no retention required.

thank you,