Thanks to everybody who clued me in on what I needed for duel sata, I seen a demonstration computer running a quad core processor with SUSE 10.3 and thought to myself it time to update the server, I already have four IDE drives totaling 750G, on a win98/XP system. that somewhat works and a 40G Sata have been playing around with while learning Linux. The tech wold seems to be leaning heavily toward SATA for future developments, So i figured i might as well go that route for now. If I could afford 1T SCSI HD, I would go that route. but as it my planning is going know, I dumping everything into the processor. I am going to build a new server with the quad core that is just out or is coming out, So far I think I going with the Kentfield processor from Intel, unless the Barcelona (sp?) from AMD seems to better suit me when I get it time to go shopping. The Mobo I saw an Asues that I still checking into.
I have built quite a few quad-core machines. Mostly AMD, a few Intel. All of them SATA. Recently, I have built 2 RedHat servers for the University of Maryland, all SATA. SCSI is good, no doubt, but expensive. SATA is fast, stable, and cheap and certainly considered and used for server use. On 6/4/07, Earle Beason <Earle-Beason@kc.rr.com> wrote:
Thanks to everybody who clued me in on what I needed for duel sata,
I seen a demonstration computer running a quad core processor with SUSE 10.3 and thought to myself it time to update the server, I already have four IDE drives totaling 750G, on a win98/XP system. that somewhat works and a 40G Sata have been playing around with while learning Linux.
The tech wold seems to be leaning heavily toward SATA for future developments, So i figured i might as well go that route for now. If I could afford 1T SCSI HD, I would go that route. but as it my planning is going know, I dumping everything into the processor.
I am going to build a new server with the quad core that is just out or is coming out, So far I think I going with the Kentfield processor from Intel, unless the Barcelona (sp?) from AMD seems to better suit me when I get it time to go shopping. The Mobo I saw an Asues that I still checking into.
_______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
-- RtX... Ty Unes - Overland Park, Ks. riverty@gmail.com
Not to mention that with the recent SATA drive sizes to get 1TB of SATA would only take 2 drive. However, if you want to use a multi-channel SATA controller with raid you will want to use smaller drives (like 4 x 300 or 8 X 250) so you don't loose too much capacity to parity. ________________________________ From: kclug-bounces@kclug.org [mailto:kclug-bounces@kclug.org] On Behalf Of RtX Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 10:53 PM To: Earle Beason Cc: kclug@kclug.org Subject: Re: SATA PT2 I have built quite a few quad-core machines. Mostly AMD, a few Intel. All of them SATA. Recently, I have built 2 RedHat servers for the University of Maryland, all SATA. SCSI is good, no doubt, but expensive. SATA is fast, stable, and cheap and certainly considered and used for server use. On 6/4/07, Earle Beason <Earle-Beason@kc.rr.com> wrote: Thanks to everybody who clued me in on what I needed for duel sata, I seen a demonstration computer running a quad core processor with SUSE 10.3 and thought to myself it time to update the server, I already have four IDE drives totaling 750G, on a win98/XP system. that somewhat works and a 40G Sata have been playing around with while learning Linux. The tech wold seems to be leaning heavily toward SATA for future developments, So i figured i might as well go that route for now. If I could afford 1T SCSI HD, I would go that route. but as it my planning is going know, I dumping everything into the processor. I am going to build a new server with the quad core that is just out or is coming out, So far I think I going with the Kentfield processor from Intel, unless the Barcelona (sp?) from AMD seems to better suit me when I get it time to go shopping. The Mobo I saw an Asues that I still checking into. _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug -- RtX... Ty Unes - Overland Park, Ks. riverty@gmail.com
On Tuesday 05 June 2007 09:11, Phil Thayer wrote:
Not to mention that with the recent SATA drive sizes to get 1TB of SATA would only take 2 drive. However, if you want to use a multi-channel SATA controller with raid you will want to use smaller drives (like 4 x 300 or 8 X 250) so you don't loose too much capacity to parity.
With 8 drives, I'd probably want to make 2 parity for a server... As unlikely as it is for 2 drives to fail at once, that chance does increase with # of drives.
If you do that you need to make sure that the controller will support RAID 6 or RAID ADG. This is simply a RAID 5 with an additional parity disk implemented. This reduces the risk of failure of the entire RAID if a single disk fails. The RAID will simply function as if it were a RAID 5 until the failed disk is physically replaced and the RAID 6 or RAID ADG is rebuilt. As an alternative, if you have a controller that does not have RAID 6 or RAID ADG, then you can use RAID 5 with a spare disk set aside for use as a spareset in case of a failure. This does not eliminate the risk in case of a single disk failure but it reduces it to the time required to rebuild the RAID using the spareset as opposed to the time it takes to physically replace a drive in a degraded RAID 5. If you suffer a second disk drive failure during the time that the RAID 5 is rebuilding after the first disk drive failure, then you will loose your entire RAID. The ultimate high availability configuration would be RAID 60+. This would be two RAID 6 with their own sparesets assigned, mirrored to each other. However, be prepared to loose a larger percentage of your raw disk drive space. You will loose the equivalent of: Two disk drives for each RAID 6 used Two disk drives for each RAID 6 for redundant sparesets One raid 6 with the mirroring I really don't expect that you would build something like that for a home server but I figured I would throw all that out there just in case you had more money that you know what to do with and want to make sure the data on your server is safe from failure. Phil
-----Original Message----- From: kclug-bounces@kclug.org [mailto:kclug-bounces@kclug.org] On Behalf Of Luke-Jr Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 9:20 AM To: kclug@kclug.org Subject: Re: SATA PT2
On Tuesday 05 June 2007 09:11, Phil Thayer wrote:
Not to mention that with the recent SATA drive sizes to get 1TB of SATA would only take 2 drive. However, if you want to use a multi-channel SATA controller with raid you will want to use smaller drives (like 4 x 300 or 8 X 250) so you don't loose too much capacity to parity.
With 8 drives, I'd probably want to make 2 parity for a server... As unlikely as it is for 2 drives to fail at once, that chance does increase with # of drives. _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
RAID 0 is a striped set, no parity. RAID 1 is a mirrored set. So RAID60 would be two RAID 6 arrays striped together. RAID61 would be two mirrored RAID 6 arrays... I could see maybe why you would strip two RAID 6 arrays to increase performance, but that would be incredibly costly and I would say complete overkill. If you need redundancy and speed is a high priority, you might as well do RAID10, a stripped set of mirrored drives. However, if you a have a limited number of drives and needed the most storage size by reducing the ratio of parity drives and disk I/O performance isn't too important then RAID 5/6 is your answer. On 6/5/07, Phil Thayer <phil.thayer@vitalsite.com> wrote:
If you do that you need to make sure that the controller will support RAID 6 or RAID ADG. This is simply a RAID 5 with an additional parity disk implemented. This reduces the risk of failure of the entire RAID if a single disk fails. The RAID will simply function as if it were a RAID 5 until the failed disk is physically replaced and the RAID 6 or RAID ADG is rebuilt.
As an alternative, if you have a controller that does not have RAID 6 or RAID ADG, then you can use RAID 5 with a spare disk set aside for use as a spareset in case of a failure. This does not eliminate the risk in case of a single disk failure but it reduces it to the time required to rebuild the RAID using the spareset as opposed to the time it takes to physically replace a drive in a degraded RAID 5. If you suffer a second disk drive failure during the time that the RAID 5 is rebuilding after the first disk drive failure, then you will loose your entire RAID.
The ultimate high availability configuration would be RAID 60+. This would be two RAID 6 with their own sparesets assigned, mirrored to each other. However, be prepared to loose a larger percentage of your raw disk drive space. You will loose the equivalent of:
Two disk drives for each RAID 6 used Two disk drives for each RAID 6 for redundant sparesets One raid 6 with the mirroring
I really don't expect that you would build something like that for a home server but I figured I would throw all that out there just in case you had more money that you know what to do with and want to make sure the data on your server is safe from failure.
Phil
-----Original Message----- From: kclug-bounces@kclug.org [mailto:kclug-bounces@kclug.org] On Behalf Of Luke-Jr Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 9:20 AM To: kclug@kclug.org Subject: Re: SATA PT2
On Tuesday 05 June 2007 09:11, Phil Thayer wrote:
Not to mention that with the recent SATA drive sizes to get 1TB of SATA would only take 2 drive. However, if you want to use a multi-channel SATA controller with raid you will want to use smaller drives (like 4 x 300 or 8 X 250) so you don't loose too much capacity to parity.
With 8 drives, I'd probably want to make 2 parity for a server... As unlikely as it is for 2 drives to fail at once, that chance does increase with # of drives. _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
_______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
On 6/5/07, Jeremy Fowler <jeremy.f76@gmail.com> wrote:
I could see maybe why you would strip two RAID 6 arrays to increase performance, but that would be incredibly costly and I would say complete overkill.
I meant to say RAID 61 would be incredibly costly and I would say complete overkill, and finding a controller that supported it may be hard. RAID60 is a good option is you want medium performance with excellent redundancy. Need a minimum of 8 drives though and your still using half of them for parity...
True. I missed that on the RAID 0 as opposed to RAID 1. Also, you would probable be surprised at the number of places that use the RAID 6 or RAID ADG in a mirrored configuration. It is not a fast or speedy solution. Remember that RAID 6 or RAID ADG is the SLOWEST RAID as far as performance is concerned. With RAID 10 you still open yourself up to vulnerability when a drive fails on your stripeset which causes your stripeset to fail. Since it is mirrored you are fine unless you have a failure on your mirrored stripeset. Personally, I don't like to use RAID 0 at anytime because it has no resiliency when it comes to disk failures. I would rather have the RAID 5 at a minimum for any single disk LUN and then use RAID 1 for additional redundancy. But generally I work with companies that are willing to spend the money for that configuration along with having controllers with the maximum read/write cache to compensate for the speed. ________________________________ From: Jeremy Fowler [mailto:jeremy.f76@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 2:17 PM To: Phil Thayer Cc: kclug@kclug.org Subject: Re: SATA PT2 RAID 0 is a striped set, no parity. RAID 1 is a mirrored set. So RAID60 would be two RAID 6 arrays striped together. RAID61 would be two mirrored RAID 6 arrays... I could see maybe why you would strip two RAID 6 arrays to increase performance, but that would be incredibly costly and I would say complete overkill. If you need redundancy and speed is a high priority, you might as well do RAID10, a stripped set of mirrored drives. However, if you a have a limited number of drives and needed the most storage size by reducing the ratio of parity drives and disk I/O performance isn't too important then RAID 5/6 is your answer. On 6/5/07, Phil Thayer <phil.thayer@vitalsite.com> wrote: If you do that you need to make sure that the controller will support RAID 6 or RAID ADG. This is simply a RAID 5 with an additional parity disk implemented. This reduces the risk of failure of the entire RAID if a single disk fails. The RAID will simply function as if it were a RAID 5 until the failed disk is physically replaced and the RAID 6 or RAID ADG is rebuilt. As an alternative, if you have a controller that does not have RAID 6 or RAID ADG, then you can use RAID 5 with a spare disk set aside for use as a spareset in case of a failure. This does not eliminate the risk in case of a single disk failure but it reduces it to the time required to rebuild the RAID using the spareset as opposed to the time it takes to physically replace a drive in a degraded RAID 5. If you suffer a second disk drive failure during the time that the RAID 5 is rebuilding after the first disk drive failure, then you will loose your entire RAID. The ultimate high availability configuration would be RAID 60+. This would be two RAID 6 with their own sparesets assigned, mirrored to each other. However, be prepared to loose a larger percentage of your raw disk drive space. You will loose the equivalent of: Two disk drives for each RAID 6 used Two disk drives for each RAID 6 for redundant sparesets One raid 6 with the mirroring I really don't expect that you would build something like that for a home server but I figured I would throw all that out there just in case you had more money that you know what to do with and want to make sure the data on your server is safe from failure. Phil > -----Original Message----- > From: kclug-bounces@kclug.org > [mailto: kclug-bounces@kclug.org <mailto:kclug-bounces@kclug.org> ] On Behalf Of Luke-Jr > Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 9:20 AM > To: kclug@kclug.org > Subject: Re: SATA PT2 > > On Tuesday 05 June 2007 09:11, Phil Thayer wrote: > > Not to mention that with the recent SATA drive sizes to get > 1TB of SATA > > would only take 2 drive. However, if you want to use a > multi-channel > > SATA controller with raid you will want to use smaller > drives (like 4 x > > 300 or 8 X 250) so you don't loose too much capacity to parity. > > With 8 drives, I'd probably want to make 2 parity for a > server... As unlikely > as it is for 2 drives to fail at once, that chance does > increase with # of > drives. > _______________________________________________ > Kclug mailing list > Kclug@kclug.org > http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug > _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
Well don't get RAID 10 confused with RAID0+1. With RAID10 your stripped set wouldn't fail unless both drives of a single mirrored set failed, since RAID 10 is a stripped set of mirrored drives. RAID 1+0 is two stipped sets mirrored together and here one of the stripped sets would fail if a single drive failed. I use RAID 0 in my home PC because I want the pure performance of a stripped set, and I'm a risk taker... ;-) On 6/5/07, Phil Thayer <phil.thayer@vitalsite.com> wrote:
True. I missed that on the RAID 0 as opposed to RAID 1.
Also, you would probable be surprised at the number of places that use the RAID 6 or RAID ADG in a mirrored configuration. It is not a fast or speedy solution. Remember that RAID 6 or RAID ADG is the SLOWEST RAID as far as performance is concerned. With RAID 10 you still open yourself up to vulnerability when a drive fails on your stripeset which causes your stripeset to fail. Since it is mirrored you are fine unless you have a failure on your mirrored stripeset. Personally, I don't like to use RAID 0 at anytime because it has no resiliency when it comes to disk failures. I would rather have the RAID 5 at a minimum for any single disk LUN and then use RAID 1 for additional redundancy. But generally I work with companies that are willing to spend the money for that configuration along with having controllers with the maximum read/write cache to compensate for the speed.
I've found this link about RAID very educational. It covers all of the RAIDs and tells you their advantages, disadvantages, and uses. Has nice pictures too. http://www.acnc.com/04_01_00.html
I found a great site once that had RAID sets depicted with 5 gallon water cooler jugs. here: http://home.comcast.net/~kevin-e-kline/wsb/media/1298685/site1012.jpg and here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tirrell/128638167/ On 6/5/07, James Sissel <> wrote:
I've found this link about RAID very educational. It covers all of the RAIDs and tells you their advantages, disadvantages, and uses. Has nice pictures too.
participants (7)
-
Brian Kelsay -
Earle Beason -
James Sissel -
Jeremy Fowler -
Luke-Jr -
Phil Thayer -
RtX