I must admit im not an expert into virtualisation (Yet!! we are starting a 50 server migration soon into vmware.)
But its my best belief its still the safest bet to place logs and data on two physically sets of disks, please explain why this assumption isnt valid?
In my installation we are running LCR on the exchange installation. But you must understand its a replication of the running data. You cannot place them on the same volumes(physical). If you have a volume corruption, or two disks break at the same time (allthough its unlikely), you will have to restore from the last good backup. The whole point of having log files, is the ability to restore a destroyed database upto or closeto the last write to the log.
It is simply a matter of how important your users mail is. If your business can handle a whole days loss of data, then there basically isnt even a reason to have logs (other than the fact its a builtin function).
CCR is "better" it allows you to have a second mail host, but its double the windows/exchange licenses, but within budget. Again it should not be placed on the same physical disks at the the "primary" exchange server has its data.
But Mitch808, i might be misunderstanding something entirely, so please enlighten me
LUNs are basically just data volumes the host can see. Normally a LUN is one or more Raid groups, presented to the host as one volume.
Never SAN equipment also allows for stuff like Thin provisioning, wich basically is telling the host that it has 500gb, while only reserving fx. 200gb on the SAN, and then expanding it when the data space is needed.
I must admit i do not know much about HP MSA equipment, ive primarily worked with EMC claariion equipment(fiber channel), and we are just switching to a Iscsi SAN platform (Dell Equallogic) for our new VmWare platform.