Virtualized Exchange 2016 - ReFS or NTFS

[sgunelius]

We're preparing to replace our 2008 R2/Exchange 2010 VMs with 2016/Exchange 2016 equivalent and I'm researching the file system recommended by the vendor (and Microsoft).  It was recommended that we use virtual disks instead of RDMs and that we employ ReFS on the volumes supporting the Databases and Logs.  I'm waiting for confirmation on recommended cluster sizes, but in the meantime can anyone comment on their experience with ReFS?  I've read several articles indicating its performance wasn't that much improved over NTFS and even got the impression ReFS might not be as "reliable" as it's name implies.  I'd appreciate your feedback, especially if you've deployed Exchange 2016 with ReFS.  Thank you very much.

Scott

[continuum]

There are 2 types of vSphere environments: one type occasionally needs to repair or recover virtual disks - the other type just hits the green button in a similar case.
If your setup is of the first type I highly recommend to stick to NTFS and no performance gain would justify a switch to ReFS.
NTFS formatted - eager zeroed thick provisioned VMDKs offer the best chances in a recovery-case.
Well at least in the list of recoveries that I have done in the last few years ...

[vfk]

Looking at the Exchange 2016 Requirements ReFS is optional, and only for specific data types.  It is not worth the hassle.  The potential for error and possibly unsupported configuration is greater, stick to NTFS.  Other things to consider is your current backup solutions, does that support ReFS?

Keep it simple and stick to what you know works.  Also, consider Office 365 unless there is a good reason not to use O365.