The theory question on Reseeding

Mikhail Firsov 1,876 Reputation points
2022-01-24T13:25:15.12+00:00

Hello!

I've seen the following statements a couple of times and - although I'm not planning on using the Reseed feature -would like to clarify the question:
167887-q1.png

Can anyone please explain me why would the keeping several databases on the same volume be better (faster!) than - for example - storing each database on its own volume/disk?

If I change the single volume with 4 DBs in the example above to the 4 separate volumes/drives with a single database on each volume, wouldn't it be faster to reseed any faulted db with a single volume/db as a source and a single volume/db as a destination?
By the way, when a single volume with 4 databases goes down you'll need to reseed all 4 databases; on contrary - when a volume hosts a single database only that database must be reseeded...

Thank you in advance,
Michael

Exchange Server Management
Exchange Server Management
Exchange Server: A family of Microsoft client/server messaging and collaboration software.Management: The act or process of organizing, handling, directing or controlling something.
7,357 questions
0 comments
Accepted answer
  1. Andy David - MVP 142.2K Reputation points MVP
    2022-01-24T14:06:39+00:00

    Having 4 separate disks ( one for each database ) would be faster but prob not practical or cost effective, versus a Volume which is a section of a disk or spans multiple disks in a RAID.

    Exchange was improved starting in Exch 2013 to allow multiple DBs on the same disk:
    https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/exchange/changes-to-high-availability-and-site-resilience-over-previous-versions-exchange-2013-help?redirectedfrom=MSDN

    Hence, the recommendation to maximize the the number of DBs for speed with cost factored in.

    0 comments

4 additional answers

Sort by: Most helpful
Most helpful Newest Oldest
  1. Mikhail Firsov 1,876 Reputation points
    2022-01-24T14:39:52.797+00:00

    Yes, I've read it but...it's more pertaining to the hardware/money ration than the fastest method available (a single db per single disk will always be faster yet more expensive).

    Thank you for your help, AndyDavid!

    1 person found this answer helpful.
    0 comments
  2. Mikhail Firsov 1,876 Reputation points
    2022-01-24T14:09:32.547+00:00

    "Having 4 separate disks ( one for each database ) would be faster" - I agree but why in this case the book says ~" 4 (or N in general) DBs on the same volume" is the best choice???

    0 comments
  3. Andy David - MVP 142.2K Reputation points MVP
    2022-01-24T14:15:51.327+00:00

    IMO, its the best choice and balance because Exchange allows for multiple DBs on the same volume without losing performance and its more practical then requiring a separate disk for each DB.

    0 comments
  4. Mikhail Firsov 1,876 Reputation points
    2022-01-24T14:17:43.13+00:00

    "multiple DBs on the same volume without losing performance" - hmmm, is it really so?