Server and raid setup

Zirax · 17-09-2007, 10:01

Ok, just need people to check through this spec and see if I am missing something. Eventually I will be upgrading my ageing rig. Now seeing as hdds are a long way behind I have come up with the idea of creating to an uber array. Currently I have these in Raid 1
PC
2*300gb - raid 1
2*160gb - raid 1
Server
2*300 - raid 1
1*120gb
The idea is to get a PCIX 4X Highpoint 2310 raid card for £112 and 4* WD 160gb hdds @ 32.36. Looking at the WD over the Seagate hdds as they come with 16mb cache. Now all of these are going to be put into one raid 0 array on my main pc. This is simply for speed. Looking at the reviews it should be around 300mb/sec versus the 120mb/sec ish of my raid 1.
The redundancy for the main pc will be catered for by the server which will now contain 4* 300gb hdds in raid 5. Gigabit connection between the two machines. I will put server 2003 and maybe exchange on there?
I am putting this past you to see if there is something that I have missed. Do you have any recommendations of mail server software that I should look at? Essentially documents and mails will remain on the server and the pc will become a gaming / media machine rather than storing lots of info at the moment.

Mark · 17-09-2007, 10:15

Can you put more than two disks in RAID 0? I don't see why not but it's not something I've come across before. Bear in mind that if you can, you'll end up with 4x the likelihood of failure (one dead disk and you lose everything).

Only thing I'll say is watch out for heat issues. I had four disks stacked on top of each other in a case and it was a serious heat trap with the disks running in the high-40s C all the time and hitting 50 on a warm day (running disks above 50C isn't a good idea IMO).

Daz · 17-09-2007, 10:18

4 hard drives in RAID 0?! I'm a big fan of 0 and not even I'd do that. Twice as vulnerable to disk failure I could stomach, but not 4 times. I'd RAID-10 them myself.

As for the server software it comes down to cost. You can host files and mail in Linux for free, it just might be a bit unfamiliar to you and come with a learning curve. Or you can run it on Windows, either in a domain or not (though you'll need one for exchange) and it'll be more familiar, and possibly not with such a steep learning curve (Exchange in particular can be complicated if you're not used to it, though it's not to bad to just get it up and running).

I assume you mean PCI-E and not PCI-X for the raid card?

[edit]You can Mark, if the controller supports it

[edit2]I'd should also say that in a 4 disk 0 array your seek time could be pretty high, depending on how clever the controller is. For high bandwidth apps having the speed is little good if the disks are always thrashing around trying to piece together the data.

Mark · 17-09-2007, 10:23

I don't personally trust RAID-10 after seeing two hardware controllers (both 3ware IIRC) each nuke their respective arrays from orbit. It wasn't pretty either time. Ask Beansprout as it was his server.

I'm sure he was just unlucky, but two failures like that tends to leave an impression.

Admiral Huddy · 17-09-2007, 10:24

Daz, do you really think that RAID 0 is beneficial to performance? I've often though about it. In fact, just as I was going to format the drives last time I re-installed windows I was read an article making it quite clear that it made no difference to performance what so ever and was pointless.

Matt, what about RAID-5?

Daz · 17-09-2007, 10:24

I'm sure

Never had trouble with it here, use it on the busy production SQL servers.

Daz · 17-09-2007, 10:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Admiral Huddy

Daz, do you really think that RAID 0 is beneficial to performance?

Yep, if you're using applications that can benefit from it. I virtualise a lot, and when you have multiple VM's accessing their disks (large chunks of binary data), the bandwidth makes all the difference. I've done direct comparisons myself, not to mention actually working with both setups and now, none of my workstations (either at home or work) have a single disk bottleneck.

Mark · 17-09-2007, 10:34

I agree with Daz on that one. Dealing with applications like VMs, video editing, databases, that sort of thing, that have big files and need rapid access to them is a perfect candidate for RAID 0. Video editing in particular is a good one because it's often sequential access so doesn't suffer the seek penalties as much.

For the average home user though, it's rare that any benefit would outweigh the reliability penalty, and in most cases it just ends up being a bigger e-penis claim based on hdtach scores.

I'll be honest and say I'm doubtful of the benefits of running RAID 0 on a file server built for home use because of the inevitable network transmission penalties (even with GbE). I have no benchmarks to back that up though so I'm probably wrong.

Daz · 17-09-2007, 10:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark

I'll be honest and say I'm doubtful of the benefits of running RAID 0 on a file server built for home use because of the inevitable network transmission penalties (even with GbE).

Absolutely. And on a file server, because serving them is so trivial it's more important the data is looked after, so RAID-1/5 is better suited.

Zirax · 17-09-2007, 10:37

The thing that had put me off raid 5 was the slow down in writing data apparently. Not that I am going to be dumping 4gb sql tables often. I was simply musing the idea seeing that very fast drives cost bugger all now. Also your machine is only as quick as the slowest component (you know what I mean). I know a lot of people run raid 0 over two hdds, so i'm after the best solution for running 4 in parallel.

I currently have 4 hdds sitting in my main pc with 2* slow turning 120mm fans turning over them. Heat is not an issue. MB saw my setup the other weekend, its extreme but quiet.

17-09-2007, 10:01	#1
Zirax Goes up to 11! Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,577	Server and raid setup Ok, just need people to check through this spec and see if I am missing something. Eventually I will be upgrading my ageing rig. Now seeing as hdds are a long way behind I have come up with the idea of creating to an uber array. Currently I have these in Raid 1 PC 2300gb - raid 1 2160gb - raid 1 Server 2300 - raid 1 1120gb The idea is to get a PCIX 4X Highpoint 2310 raid card for £112 and 4* WD 160gb hdds @ 32.36. Looking at the WD over the Seagate hdds as they come with 16mb cache. Now all of these are going to be put into one raid 0 array on my main pc. This is simply for speed. Looking at the reviews it should be around 300mb/sec versus the 120mb/sec ish of my raid 1. The redundancy for the main pc will be catered for by the server which will now contain 4* 300gb hdds in raid 5. Gigabit connection between the two machines. I will put server 2003 and maybe exchange on there? I am putting this past you to see if there is something that I have missed. Do you have any recommendations of mail server software that I should look at? Essentially documents and mails will remain on the server and the pc will become a gaming / media machine rather than storing lots of info at the moment.

17-09-2007, 10:18	#3
Daz The Stig Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Swad! Posts: 10,713	4 hard drives in RAID 0?! I'm a big fan of 0 and not even I'd do that. Twice as vulnerable to disk failure I could stomach, but not 4 times. I'd RAID-10 them myself. As for the server software it comes down to cost. You can host files and mail in Linux for free, it just might be a bit unfamiliar to you and come with a learning curve. Or you can run it on Windows, either in a domain or not (though you'll need one for exchange) and it'll be more familiar, and possibly not with such a steep learning curve (Exchange in particular can be complicated if you're not used to it, though it's not to bad to just get it up and running). I assume you mean PCI-E and not PCI-X for the raid card? [edit]You can Mark, if the controller supports it [edit2]I'd should also say that in a 4 disk 0 array your seek time could be pretty high, depending on how clever the controller is. For high bandwidth apps having the speed is little good if the disks are always thrashing around trying to piece together the data. __________________ apt-get moo

17-09-2007, 10:23	#4
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	I don't personally trust RAID-10 after seeing two hardware controllers (both 3ware IIRC) each nuke their respective arrays from orbit. It wasn't pretty either time. Ask Beansprout as it was his server. I'm sure he was just unlucky, but two failures like that tends to leave an impression. Last edited by Mark; 17-09-2007 at 10:27.

17-09-2007, 10:24	#5
Admiral Huddy HOMO-Sapien Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Chelmsford Posts: 6,692	Daz, do you really think that RAID 0 is beneficial to performance? I've often though about it. In fact, just as I was going to format the drives last time I re-installed windows I was read an article making it quite clear that it made no difference to performance what so ever and was pointless. Matt, what about RAID-5? __________________ I just got lost in thought.. It was very unfamiliar territory. Techie Talk \| My gaming Blog \| PC spec \| The Admirals log

17-09-2007, 10:24	#6
Daz The Stig Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Swad! Posts: 10,713	I'm sure Never had trouble with it here, use it on the busy production SQL servers. __________________ apt-get moo

17-09-2007, 10:15	#2
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	Can you put more than two disks in RAID 0? I don't see why not but it's not something I've come across before. Bear in mind that if you can, you'll end up with 4x the likelihood of failure (one dead disk and you lose everything). Only thing I'll say is watch out for heat issues. I had four disks stacked on top of each other in a case and it was a serious heat trap with the disks running in the high-40s C all the time and hitting 50 on a warm day (running disks above 50C isn't a good idea IMO).

17-09-2007, 10:34	#8
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	I agree with Daz on that one. Dealing with applications like VMs, video editing, databases, that sort of thing, that have big files and need rapid access to them is a perfect candidate for RAID 0. Video editing in particular is a good one because it's often sequential access so doesn't suffer the seek penalties as much. For the average home user though, it's rare that any benefit would outweigh the reliability penalty, and in most cases it just ends up being a bigger e-penis claim based on hdtach scores. I'll be honest and say I'm doubtful of the benefits of running RAID 0 on a file server built for home use because of the inevitable network transmission penalties (even with GbE). I have no benchmarks to back that up though so I'm probably wrong.

17-09-2007, 10:37	#10
Zirax Goes up to 11! Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,577	The thing that had put me off raid 5 was the slow down in writing data apparently. Not that I am going to be dumping 4gb sql tables often. I was simply musing the idea seeing that very fast drives cost bugger all now. Also your machine is only as quick as the slowest component (you know what I mean). I know a lot of people run raid 0 over two hdds, so i'm after the best solution for running 4 in parallel. I currently have 4 hdds sitting in my main pc with 2* slow turning 120mm fans turning over them. Heat is not an issue. MB saw my setup the other weekend, its extreme but quiet.