[2100 PST 11/5/2012: Edited to fix some typos and missing words/sentences.]
So, um…I knew it was going to take me a while to write this third part of the Exchange 2010 storage saga…but over two years? Damn, guys. I don’t even know what to say, other than to get to it.
So, we’ve this lovely little 3-dimension storage axis I’ve been talking about in parts 1 (JBOD vs. RAID) and 2 (SATA vs. SAS/FC). Part 3 addresses the third axis: SAN vs. DAS.
What’s in a name?
It used to be that everyone agreed on the distinction between DAS, NAS, and SAN:
- DAS was typically dumb or entry-level storage arrays that connected to a single (or at most two or three) servers via SCSI, SATA/SAS, or some other storage-specific cabling/protocol. DAS arrays typically had very little on-board smarts, other than the ability to run RAID configurations and present the RAID volumes to the connected server as if they were a single volume instead.
- NAS was file-level storage presented over a network connection to servers. The two common protocols used were NFS (for Unix machines) and SMB/CIFS (for Windows machines). NAS solutions often include more functionality, including features such as direct interfaces with backup solutions, snapshots of the data volumes, replication of data to other units, and dynamic addition of storage.
- SAN was high-end, expensive block-level storage presented over a separate network infrastructure such as FC or iSCSI over Ethernet. SAN systems offer even more features aimed at enterprise markets, including sophisticated disk partitioning and access mechanisms designed to achieve incredibly high levels of concurrence and performance.
As time passed and most vendors figured out that providing support for both file-level and block-level protocols made their systems more attractive by allowing them to be reconfigured and repurposed by their customers, the distinction between NAS and SAN began to blur. DAS, however, was definitely dumb storage. Heck, if you wanted to share it with multiple systems, you had to have multiple physical connections! (Anyone other than me remember those lovely days of using SCSI DAS arrays for poor man’s clustering by connecting two SCSI hosts – one with a non-default host ID – to the same SCSI chain?)
At any rate, it was all good. For Exchange 2003 and early Exchange 2007 deployments, storage vendors were happy because if you had more than a few hundred users, you almost certainly needed a NAS/SAN solution to consolidate the number of spindles required to meet your IOPS targets.
The heck you say!
In the middle of the Exchange 2007 era, Microsoft upset the applecart. It turns out that with the ongoing trend of larger mailboxes, Exchange 2007 SP1, CCR, and SCR, many customers were able to do something pretty cool: decrease the mailbox/database density to the point where (with Exchange 2007’s reduced IOPS) the total IOPS for their databases no longer required a sophisticated storage solution to provide the requisite IOPS. In general, disks for SAN/NAS units have to be of a higher quality and speed than for DAS arrays, so they typically had better performance and lower capacity than consumer-grade drives.
This trend only got more noticeable and deliberate in Exchange 2010, when Microsoft unified CCR and SCR into the DAG and moved replication to the application layer (as we discussed in Part 1). Microsoft specifically designed Exchange 2010 to be deployable on a direct-attached RAID-less 2TB SATA 7200 RPM drive to hold a database and log files, so they could scale hosted Exchange deployments up in an affordable fashion. Suddenly, Exchange no longer needed SAN/NAS units for most deployments – as long as you had sufficiently large mailboxes throughout your databases to reduce the IOPS/database ratio below the required amount.
Needless to say, storage vendors have taken this about as light-heartedly as a coronary.
How many of you have heard in the past couple of years the message that “SAN and DAS are the same thing, just different protocols”?
The previous quote is from EMC, but I’ve heard the same thing from NetApp and other SAN vendors. Ever notice how it’s only the SAN vendors who are saying this?
I call shenanigans.
If they were the same thing, storage vendors wouldn’t be spending so much money on whitepapers and marketing to try to convince Exchange admins (more accurately, their managers) that there was really no difference and that the TCO of a SAN just happens to be a better bet.
What SAN vendors now push are features like replication, thin provisioning, virtualization and DR integration, backup and recovery – not to mention the traditional benefits of storage consolidation and centralized management. Here’s the catch, though. From my own experience, their models only work IF and ONLY IF you continue to deploy Exchange 2010 the same way you deployed Exchange 2003 and Exchange 2007:
- deploying small mailboxes that concentrate IOPS in the same mailbox database
- grouping mailboxes based on criteria meant to maximize single instance storage (SIS)
- planning Exchange deployments around existing SAN features and backup strategies
- relying on third-party functionality for HA and DR
- deploying Exchange 2010 DAGs as if they were a shared copy cluster
When it comes right down to it, both SAN and DAS deployments are technically (and financially) feasible solutions for Exchange deployments, as long as you know exactly what your requirements are and let your requirements drive your choice of technology. I’ve had too many customers who started with the technology and insisted that they had to use that specific solution. Inevitably, by designing around technological elements, you either have to compromise requirements or spend unnecessary energy, time, and money solving unexpected complications.
So if both technologies are viable solutions, what factors should you consider to help decide between DAS and SAN?
You’ve probably heard a lot of other Exchange architects and pros talk about complexity – especially if they’re also Certified Masters. There’s a reason for this – more complex systems, all else being equal, are more prone to system outages and support calls. So why do so many Exchange “pros” insist on putting complexity into the storage design for their Exchange systems when they don’t even know what that complexity is getting them? Yes, that’s right, Exchange has millennia of man-hours poured into optimizing and testing the storage system so that your critical data is safe under almost all conditions, and then you go and design storage systems that increase the odds the fsck-up fairy will come dance with your data in the pale moonlight.
SANs add complexity. They add more system components and drivers, extra bits of configuration, and additional systems with their own operating system, firmware, and maintenance requirements. I’ll pick on NetApp for a moment because I’m most familiar with their systems, but the rest of the vendors have their own stories that hit most of the same high points:
- I have to pick either iSCSI or FC and configure the appropriate HBA/NICs plus infrastructure, plus drivers and firmware. If I’m using FC I get expensive FC HBAs and switches to manage. If I go with iSCSI I get additional GB or 10GB Ethernet interfaces in my Exchange servers and the joy of managing yet another isolated set of network adapters and making sure Exchange doesn’t perform DAG replication over them.
- I have to install the NetApp Storage Tools.
- I have to install the appropriate MPIO driver.
- I have to install the SnapDrive service, because if I don’t, the NetApp snapshot capability won’t interface with Windows VSS, and if I’m doing software VSS why the hell am I even using a SAN?
- I *should* install SnapManager for Exchange (although I don’t have to) so that my hardware VSS backups happen and I can use it as an interface to the rest of the NetApp protection products and offerings.
- I need to make sure my NetApp guy has the storage controllers installed and configured. Did I want redundancy on the NetApp controller? Upgrades get to be fun and I have to coordinate all of that to make sure they don’t cause system outage. I get to have lovely arguments with the NetApp storage guys about why they can’t just treat my LUNs the same way they treat the rest of them, yes I need my own aggregates and volumes and no please don’t give me the really expensive 15KRPM SAS drives that store a thimble because you’re going to make your storage guys pass out when they find out how many you need for all those LUNs and volumes (x2 because of your redundant DAG copies).
Here’s the simple truth: SANs can be very reliable and stable. SANs can also be a single point of failure, because they are wicked expensive and SAN administrators and managers get put out with Exchange administrators who insist on daft restrictions like “give Exchange dedicated spindles” and “don’t put multiple copies of the same database on the same controller” and other party-pooping ways to make their imagined cost savings dwindle away to nothing. The SAN people have their own deployment best practices, just like Exchange people; those practices are designed to consolidate data for applications that don’t manage redundancy or availability on their own.
Every SAN I’ve ever worked with wants to treat all data the same way, so to make it reliable for Exchange you’re going to need to rock boats. This means more complexity (and money) and the SAN people don’t want complexity in their domain any more than you want it in yours. Unless you know exactly what benefits your solution will give you (and I’m not talking general marketing spew, I’m talking specific, realistic, quantified benefits), why in the world would you want to add complexity to your environment, especially if it’s going to start a rumble between the Exchange team and the SAN team that not even Jackie Chain and a hovercraft can fix?
Centralization and Silos
Over the past several years, IT pros and executives have heard a lot of talk about centralization. The argument for centralization is that instead of having “silos” or autonomous groups spread out, all doing the same types of things and repeating effort, you reorganize your operation so that all the storage stuff is handled by a single group, all the network stuff is handled by another group, and so on and so forth. This is another one of those principles and ideas that sounds great in theory, but can fall down in so many ways once you try to put it into practice.
The big flaw I’ve seen in most centralization efforts is that they end up creating artificial dependencies and decrease overall service availability. Exchange already has a number of dependencies that you can’t do anything about, such as Active Directory, networking, and other external systems. It is not wise to create even more dependencies when the Exchange staff doesn’t have the authority to deal with the problems those dependencies create but are still on the hook for them because the new SLAs look just like the old SLAs from the pro-silo regime.
Look, I understand that you need to realign your strategic initiatives to fully realize your operational synergies, but you can’t go do it half-assed, especially when you’re messing with business critical utility systems like corporate email. Deciding that you’re going to arbitrarily rearrange operations patterns without making sure those patterns match your actual business and operational requirements is not a recipe for long-term success.
Again, centralization is not automatically incompatible with Exchange. Doing it correctly, though, requires communication, coordination, and cross-training. It requires careful attention to business requirements, technical limitations, and operational procedures – and making sure all of these elements align. You can’t have a realistic 1-hour SLA for Exchange services when one of the potential causes for failure itself has a 4-hour SLA (and yes, I’ve seen this; holding Exchange metrics hostage to a virtualization group that has incompatible and competing priorities and SLAs makes nobody happy). If Exchange is critical to your organization, pulling the Exchange dependencies out of the central pool and back to where your Exchange team can directly operate on and fix them may be a better answer for your organization’s needs.
The centralization/silo debate is really just capitalism vs. socialism; strict capitalism makes nobody happy except hardcore libertarians, and strict socialism pulls the entire system down to the least common denominator. The real answer is a blend and compromise of both principles, each where they make sense. In your organization, DAS and an Exchange silo just may better fit your business needs.
Management and Monitoring
In most Exchange deployments I’ve seen, this is the one area I consistently see neglected, so it doesn’t surprise me that it’s not more of an issue. Exchange 2010 does a lot to make sure the system stays up and operational, but it can’t manage everything. You need to have a good monitoring system in place and you need to have automation or well-written, thorough processes to handle dealing with common warnings and low-level errors.
One of the advantages of a SAN is that (at least on a storage level) much of this will be taken care of you. Every SAN system I’ve worked with not only built-in monitoring of state of the disks and the storage hardware, but has extensive integration with external monitoring systems. It’s really nice when at the same time you get notification that you’ve had a disk failure in the SAN that the SAN vendor has also been notified, so you know in the next day a spare will show up via FedEx (or even possibly brought by a technician who will replace it for you). This kind of service is not normally associated with DAS arrays.
However, even the SAN’s luscious – nay, sybaritic – level of notification luxury only protects you against SAN-level failures. SAN monitoring doesn’t know anything about Exchange 2010 database copy status or DAG cluster issues or Windows networking or RPC latency or CAS arrays or load balancer errors. Whether you deploy Exchange 2010 on a SAN or DAS offering, you need to have a monitoring solution that provides this kind of end-to-end view of your system. Low-end applications that rely on system-agnostic IP pings and protocol endpoint probes are better than nothing, but they aren’t a substitute for application-aware systems such as Microsoft System Center Operations Manager or some other equivalent that understand all of the components in an Exchange DAG and queries them all for you.
You also need to think about your management software and processes. Many environments don’t like having changes made to centralized, critical dependency systems like a SAN without going through a well-defined (and relatively lengthy) change management process. In these environments, I have found it difficult to get emergency disk allocations pushed through in a timely fashion.
Why would we need emergency disk allocations in an Exchange 2010 system? Let me give you a few real examples:
- Exchange-integrated applications cause database-level corruption that drives server I/O and RPC latency up to levels that affect other users.
- Disk-level firmware errors cause disk failure or drops in data transfer rates. Start doing wide-scale disk replacements on a SAN and you’re going to drive system utilization through the roof because of all the RAID group rebuilds going on. Be careful which disks you pull at one time, too – don’t want to pull two or three disks out of the same RAID group and have the entire thing drop offline.
- Somebody else’s application starts having disk problems. You have to move the upper management’s mailboxes to new databases on unaffected disks until the problems are identified and resolved.
- A routine maintenance operation on one SAN controller goes awry, taking out half of the database copies. There’s a SAN controller with some spare capacity, but databases need to be temporarily consolidated so there is enough room for two copies of all the databases during the repair on the original controller.
Needless to say, with DAS arrays, you don’t have to tailor your purchasing, management, and operations of Exchange storage around other applications. Yes, DAS arrays have failures too, but managing them can be simpler when the Exchange team is responsible for operations end-to-end.
Backup, Replication, and Resilience
The big question for you is this: what protection and resilience strategy do you want to follow? A lot of organizations are just going on auto-pilot and using backups for Exchange 2010 because that’s how they’ve always done it. But do you really, actually need them?
No, seriously, you need to think about this.
Why do you keep backups for Exchange? If you don’t have a compelling technical reason, find the people who are responsible for the business reason and ask them what they really care about – is it having tapes or a specific technology, or is it the ability to recover information within a specific time window? If it’s the latter, then you need to take a hard look at the Exchange 2010 native data protection regime:
- At least three database copies
- Increased deleted item/deleted mailbox recovery limits
- Recoverable items and hold policies
- Personal archives and message retention
- Lagged database copies
If this combination of functionality meets your needs, you need to take a serious look at a DAS solution. A SAN solution is going to be a lot more expensive for the storage options to begin with, and it’s going to be even more expensive for more than two copies. None of my customers deployed more than two copies on a SAN, because not only did they have to budget for the increased per-disk cost, but they would have to deploy additional controllers and shelves to add the appropriate capacity and redundancy. Otherwise, they’d have had multiple copies on the same hardware, which really defeats the purpose. At that point, DAS becomes rather attractive when you start to tally up the true costs of the native data protection solution.
So what do you do if the native data protection isn’t right for you and you need traditional backups? In my experience, one of the most compelling reasons for deploying Exchange on a SAN is the fantastic backup and recovery experience you get. In particular, NetApp’s snapshot-based architecture and SME backup application head the top of my list. SME includes a specially licensed version of the Ontrack PowerControls utility to permit single mailbox recovery, all tied back into NetApp’s kick-ass snapshots. Plus, the backups happen more quickly because the VSS provider is the NetApp hardware, not a software driver in the NTFS file system stack, and you can run the ESE verification off of a separate SME server to offload CPU from the mailbox servers. Other SAN vendors offer some sort of integrated backup option of some equivalency.
The only way you’re going to get close to that via DAS is if you deploy Data Protection Manager. And honestly, if you’re still replying on tape (or cloud) backups, I really recommend that you use something like DPM to stage everything to disk first so that backups from your production servers are staging to a fast disk system. Get those VSS locks dealt with as quickly as possible and offload the ESE checks to the DPM system. Then, do your tape backups off of the DPM server and your backup windows are no longer coupled to your user-facing Exchange servers. That doesn’t even mention DPM’s 15-minute log synchronization and use of deltas to minimize storage space on its own storage pool. DPM has a lot going for it.
A lot of SANs do offer synchronous and asynchronous replication options, often at the block level. These sound like good options, especially to enhance site resiliency, and for other applications, they often can be. Don’t get suckered into using them for Exchange, though, unless they are certified to work against Exchange (and if it’s asynchronous replication, it won’t be). A DAS solution doesn’t offer this functionality, but that’s no loss in this column; whether you’re on SAN or DAS, you should be replicating via Exchange. Replicating using the SAN block-level replication means that the replication is happening without Exchange being aware of it, which means depending on when a failure happens, you could in the worst case end up with a corrupted database replica volume. Best case, your SAN-replicated database will not be in a consistent state, so you will have to run ESEUTIL to perform a consistency check and play log files forward before mounting that copy. If you’re going to that, why are you running Exchange 2010?
Now if you need a synchronous replication option, Exchange 2010 includes an API to allow a third-party provider to replace the native continuous replication capability. As far as I know, only one SAN vendor (EMC) has taken advantage of this option, so your options are pretty clear in this scenario.
We’ve covered a lot of ground in this post, so if you’re looking for a quick take-away, the answer is this:
Determine what your real requirements are, and pick your technology accordingly. Whenever possible, don’t make choices by technology or cost first without having a clear and detailed list of expected benefits in hand. You will typically find some requirement that makes your direction clear.
If anyone tells you that there’s a single right way to do it, they’re probably wrong. Having said that, though, the more I’ve seen over the past couple of years, the more people deviate from the Microsoft sweet spot, the more design compromises they’ve made when perhaps they didn’t have to. Inertia and legacy have their place but need to be balanced with innovation and reinvention.
 Not a typo, I’m just showing off my Unix roots. The fsck utility (file system check) helps fix inconsistencies in the Unix file systems. Think chkdsk.
 Can you tell I’ve been in this rodeo once or twice? But I’m not bitter. And I do love NetApp because of SME, I just realize it’s not the right answer for everyone.
 Yes, I did in fact just go there. Blame it on the nearly two years of political crap we’ve suffered in the U.S. for this election season. November 6th can’t come soon enough.
 The application in this instance was an older version of Microsoft Dynamics CRM, very behind on its patches. There was a nasty calendar corruption bug that made my customer’s life hell for a while. The solution was to upgrade CRM to the right patch level, then move all of the affected mailboxes (about 40% of the users) to new databases. We didn’t need to have a lot of new databases, as we could move them in a swing fashion, but in order to get it done in a timely fashion we needed to provision enough LUNs to have enough databases and copies that we could get the process done in a timely fashion. Each swing cycle took about two weeks because of change management when we could have gotten it done much sooner.