locked
What DB is Exchange 2010 based on? RRS feed

 > 

  • Question

  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote

    Previous versions of Exchange use the Jet DB ..  is that what 2010 uses as well?

    Wednesday, April 15, 2009 3:42 PM

Answers

  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    1
    Sign in to vote
    Yes, it still uses JetDB/Extensible Storage Engine (ESE) with new improvements for high availability, performance, and database mobility.

    New Exchange Core Store Functionality
    Amit Tank | MVP - Exchange | MCITP:EMA MCSA:M | http://ExchangeShare.WordPress.com
    Wednesday, April 15, 2009 3:46 PM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    Yes, it still uses JetDB/Extensible Storage Engine (ESE) with new improvements for high availability, performance, and database mobility.

    New Exchange Core Store Functionality
    Amit Tank | MVP - Exchange | MCITP:EMA MCSA:M | http://ExchangeShare.WordPress.com

    I also believe it is important to note that the database schema has been updated so that many of the pure performance related design considerations will change for Exchange 2010.  I am working on writing a blog article on this topic and should have it posted in the not too distant future.  In short, let’s just say that Exchange 2010 is designed to enable organizations the ability to follow the hardware manufacturers lead into much larger, cheaper disks instead of the current Exchange 2007 design requirements that most organizations have been using which normally means 10K or 15K RPM disks in either SCSI or SAS. 

    Gary A. Cooper | Senior Systems Architect | MCA:Exchange2003 | MCM:Exchange2003/2007 | Horizons Consulting, Inc. | Wk +1.618.498.6744
    Wednesday, April 15, 2009 4:00 PM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    Concur with Henrik and Brian, we may see more development since it is still being optimized and we may get better number when we are closer to RTM. 

    Current public information about storage improvements can be found here... - http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/2010/en/us/storage.aspx


    Amit Tank | MVP - Exchange | MCITP:EMA MCSA:M | http://ExchangeShare.WordPress.com
    Thursday, April 23, 2009 6:06 PM

All replies

  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    1
    Sign in to vote
    Yes, it still uses JetDB/Extensible Storage Engine (ESE) with new improvements for high availability, performance, and database mobility.

    New Exchange Core Store Functionality
    Amit Tank | MVP - Exchange | MCITP:EMA MCSA:M | http://ExchangeShare.WordPress.com
    Wednesday, April 15, 2009 3:46 PM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    Yes, it still uses JetDB/Extensible Storage Engine (ESE) with new improvements for high availability, performance, and database mobility.

    New Exchange Core Store Functionality
    Amit Tank | MVP - Exchange | MCITP:EMA MCSA:M | http://ExchangeShare.WordPress.com

    I also believe it is important to note that the database schema has been updated so that many of the pure performance related design considerations will change for Exchange 2010.  I am working on writing a blog article on this topic and should have it posted in the not too distant future.  In short, let’s just say that Exchange 2010 is designed to enable organizations the ability to follow the hardware manufacturers lead into much larger, cheaper disks instead of the current Exchange 2007 design requirements that most organizations have been using which normally means 10K or 15K RPM disks in either SCSI or SAS. 

    Gary A. Cooper | Senior Systems Architect | MCA:Exchange2003 | MCM:Exchange2003/2007 | Horizons Consulting, Inc. | Wk +1.618.498.6744
    Wednesday, April 15, 2009 4:00 PM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    Anyone knows the preliminary numbers for IOPS per mailbox?
    From what I see, it should be 10-15% improvement compared to E12, which is *very* nice, but not a dramatical improvement.
    Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:26 PM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    1
    Sign in to vote
    Where did you read those numbers?

    The Store alone will as a minimum reduce I/Os an additional 90% compared to E2K7.
    Henrik Walther Exchange MVP | MCM: E2K7 | MCITP: EMA/EA | MCSE: M+S - MSExchange.org
    Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:30 PM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote

    I would be really happy to be corrected here; this is just rumors I heard. This is exactly why I am asking the question.

    But where did you get the numbers from?

    Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:34 PM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote

    I would be really happy to be corrected here; this is just rumors I heard. This is exactly why I am asking the question.

    But where did you get the numbers from?


    Trust us, it's a bunch more more than 10-12%, but I don't know if we can share the #s yet as MS is still doing their performance testing and with the code still in beta it wouldn't be fair to make promises. :) Was it in the beta release doucuments anywhere?
    Brian Day / MCSA / CCNA, Exchange/AD geek.
    Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:42 PM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote

    I would be really happy to be corrected here; this is just rumors I heard. This is exactly why I am asking the question.

    But where did you get the numbers from?


    The Exchange Product group.

    There are not any specific numbers right now just expect huge store improvements in regards to furher reduction of I/O against the underlying storage subystem (compared to the rather impressive numbers we got with E2K7).

    As we get closer to RTM, I'm sure we will see public info on this, but right now the product is still being optimized.
    Henrik Walther Exchange MVP | MCM: E2K7 | MCITP: EMA/EA | MCSE: M+S - MSExchange.org
    Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:47 PM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    Thanks Brian! Of course I trust you :), but I am really curious about the actual numbers; it may make a lot of difference in the deployment plans (which we already starting to prepare).

    > Was it in the beta release doucuments anywhere?

    I would not call the release notes 'rumors' :)
    No, that was just rumors.
    Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:53 PM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    Concur with Henrik and Brian, we may see more development since it is still being optimized and we may get better number when we are closer to RTM. 

    Current public information about storage improvements can be found here... - http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/2010/en/us/storage.aspx


    Amit Tank | MVP - Exchange | MCITP:EMA MCSA:M | http://ExchangeShare.WordPress.com
    Thursday, April 23, 2009 6:06 PM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    How much of the improvements came from dropping single instancing?  That was always a costly operation.
    Thursday, April 23, 2009 11:11 PM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote

    To close down the queries about IOPS improvement ... the total IOPS reduction was ~70% (72% for the middle or maybe heavy corporate profile if I remember correctly) for Exchange 2010.  This IOPS reduction will depend upon your users though, so some may see less improvement, and others' will see more.

    This brought the total IOPS reduction to 90% over the last 2 releases (from Exchange 2003 to Exchange 2010).

    Brett Shirley [MSFT]

    This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

     

    Thursday, March 3, 2011 10:09 PM