Re: [SLE] SuSE 9.3 x64 and SATA II raid

From: Angus Beath (abeath_at_gmail.com)
Date: 07/12/05

  • Next message: Patrick Shanahan: "Re: [SLE] Amiga (FFS) filesystem ?" 
    To: suse-linux-e@suse.com
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 11:21:51 +1000

    Mike

    RAID 1 is not *that* slow - unless you are doing massive file transfers
    continuously. For everyday use in a server, data transfer rates are fine
    using RAID 1. It's easy to configure, great redundancy and to recover is
    very straightforward - install the new disk, partition it and then add
    it to the array and it will rebuild itself. I use RAID1 in quite a few
    servers and do not see a noticeable performance decrease (even in a
    machine based around a Celeron 366). As to hardware RAID - I'd only
    really touch Adaptec stuff and even then only with SCSI disks - it's
    tried and true. Software RAID works great for Linux boxes.

    Angus

    On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 21:09 -0400, Michael A. Coan wrote:
    > Anders,
    >
    > > [stuff deleted]
    >
    > >> Windows 2003 is a supported guest of VMWare Wks 5.0. SuSE9.3 x64 is not
    > >> officially supported, but SLES 9 is and I have read of a number of
    > >> people successful running VMWare 5.0 on SUSE 9.3 x64.
    > >
    > > Yes, I can attest to that, it runs very nicely
    >
    > Thanks for the confirmation.
    >
    > >
    > >> Regarding RAID, from what I have read. I would not use the nvidia raid
    > >> included with the nforce4 boards, but use YAST to set up software raid.
    > >> My plan is to use RAID 0 (I know that means no redundancy) and then
    > >> use an additional hard drive for backing up the data files.
    > >
    > > RAID 0 is striping and will give you extra speed. But RAID 0 has the huge
    > > drawback if one drive fails, the whole thing comes crashing down, and
    > > you'll
    > > have to reinstall everything.
    >
    > I realize that. I guess my initial thought was tht it is very easy to
    > reinstall SuSE 9.3 (less than an hour). Since Windows server will be a
    > guest OS, it will only be 6 or 7 files, so I copy over the files in 10
    > minutes and it is reinstalled. I figured that the time saved by using RAID
    > 0 over say three years, would more than offset the time it takes to
    > reinstall. Maybe that is foolish.
    >
    > Maybe i should use a 3ware controller and do raid 5. this time I will
    > know what the beeping is :) Or would you recommend RAID 10 instead.
    >
    > >
    > >> i am not inclined to use raid 5. Our current server had raid 5 with a
    > >> Perc controller and 3 Ultra 160 SCSI drives. When one of the drives
    > >> failed the controller began beeping like crazy, but everything worked
    > >> Too bad i didn't know what the beeping meant. By the time I figured out
    > >> what the beeping meant, a second drive failed and I had to reinstall
    > >> Windows Small Business Server on the remaining drive.
    > >
    > > The value of reading manuals. If you had known what the beeping meant, you
    > > could have kept the machine running (bar perhaps for the time it takes to
    > > throw in a new drive, if the hardware doesn't support hotplugging). This
    > > is
    > > why people have redundancy. Their time costs more than the hardware
    >
    > My excuse is that someone else bought and installed the server, and since
    > it was a Windows machine I tried not to get involved too muh. My mistake,
    >
    > If SuSE 9.3 supports raid10 or raid 0+1 in software, then i suppose i
    > could just get 4 drives. I ahve heard that raid1 is fairly slow.
    >
    > Mike
    >
    > Michael A. Coan
    > Woodlawn Foundation
    > 524 North Avenue, Suite 203
    > New Rochelle, NY 10801-3410
    > Tel: 914-632-3778
    > Fax: 914-632-5502
    >
    > 

    -- 
Check the headers for your unsubscription address
For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com
Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com
Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
  • Next message: Patrick Shanahan: "Re: [SLE] Amiga (FFS) filesystem ?"

    Relevant Pages

    • fedora-list-request@redhat.com
      ... Anybody have any experience with RAID controllers under ... >> is not found on that server. ... > If nVidia were to do something silly I could swap the card in a matter ... > the usb drives and then reboot to linux to get them working properly. ...
      (Fedora)
    • Re: HP proliant ML115 G5 on debian lenny
      ... dardrives to do RAID 1 backup for several other servers. ... simple backup server, any drive over 1 GB will hold all the ... system onto a 6 GB partition on one of the drives. ...
      (Debian-User)
    • Re: Stable on Supermicro server?
      ... and a mail server. ... The SATA RAID controller, although it provides a 'legacy' option ... 2 ports with 2 removable, ...
      (freebsd-stable)
    • Re: suggestions on network storage
      ... are for dummies" when SBS is involved. ... using Premium then you have SQL Server and such things are quite possible ... an entire day to re-enter it - in our discussion, RAID would have ... But it isn't your place to reject the decision the client makes. ...
      (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
    • Re: Perfomance Raid
      ... If it is a heavily updated system then placing the logs on the same physical array as the data and tempdb will most likely not give peak performance regardless of the raid type. ... You also state you don't care about redundancy. ... Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP ... Exactly what part\file of SQL Server do you want to put on that RAID0 array? ...
      (microsoft.public.sqlserver.setup)