Stick with onboard SATA controller instead of dedicated one, along with seperate 3ware?
in [Storage]
|
Prev: Lacie Biggest Quadra RAID: accepts other brands?
Next: Stick with onboard SATA controller instead of dedicated one, along with seperate 3ware?
From: markm75 on 3 Dec 2007 16:02 I'm brainstorming a new server.. i've decided to go with a 12 drive case for this one.. which means the 8 port pci-e 3ware card now needs to be a 12 port.. But.. this motherboard http://www.atacom.com/program/print_html_new.cgi?cart_id=8580932_66_122_195_5&Pagecode=SEARCH_ALL&Item_code=MBXE_SUPE_X7_04&USER_ID=www already has 6 sata and raid5 and raid10 ability... Would it be a bad idea to use the onboard one for the extra 4 drives? This server will house 3 sql instances, file serving, antivirus central server, but the user base is 40 and 2 of those sql instances are low hit rates. Would i see that much more performance for the extra $250 it would cost to put them all on the same card.. or in fact.. might it be better just to split them up in fact. Thanks for any input here.
From: lars on 6 Dec 2007 15:13 markm75 wrote: > I'm brainstorming a new server.. i've decided to go with a 12 drive > case for this one.. which means the 8 port pci-e 3ware card now needs > to be a 12 port.. > > But.. this motherboard > http://www.atacom.com/program/print_html_new.cgi?cart_id=8580932_66_122_195_5&Pagecode=SEARCH_ALL&Item_code=MBXE_SUPE_X7_04&USER_ID=www > already has 6 sata and raid5 and raid10 ability... > > Would it be a bad idea to use the onboard one for the extra 4 drives? > > This server will house 3 sql instances, file serving, antivirus > central server, but the user base is 40 and 2 of those sql instances > are low hit rates. > > Would i see that much more performance for the extra $250 it would > cost to put them all on the same card.. or in fact.. might it be > better just to split them up in fact. > > Thanks for any input here. "This is for random operations with small block sizes. At large block sizes, the Mtron drive is 10-40% faster than a 15K SSD, mostly depending on what part of the HDD you are accessing." Think you aught to currect this part... "15K SSD" ?? I think great stuff otherwise. SSD's have to go into RAID systems, think so to, nice to see someone agreeing on this. Any thoughts about RAID 6, is it needed on SSD's, large HDD 144GB+ yes but large SSD - think rebuild time aught to be lower with SSD ??
From: Arno Wagner on 6 Dec 2007 20:18 Previously lars <lars(a)hesdorf.dk> wrote: > markm75 wrote: >> I'm brainstorming a new server.. i've decided to go with a 12 drive >> case for this one.. which means the 8 port pci-e 3ware card now needs >> to be a 12 port.. >> >> But.. this motherboard >> > http://www.atacom.com/program/print_html_new.cgi?cart_id=8580932_66_122_195_5&Pagecode=SEARCH_ALL&Item_code=MBXE_SUPE_X7_04&USER_ID=www >> already has 6 sata and raid5 and raid10 ability... >> >> Would it be a bad idea to use the onboard one for the extra 4 drives? >> >> This server will house 3 sql instances, file serving, antivirus >> central server, but the user base is 40 and 2 of those sql instances >> are low hit rates. >> >> Would i see that much more performance for the extra $250 it would >> cost to put them all on the same card.. or in fact.. might it be >> better just to split them up in fact. >> >> Thanks for any input here. > "This is for random operations with small block sizes. At large block sizes, > the Mtron > drive is 10-40% faster than a 15K SSD, mostly depending on what part of the > HDD > you are accessing." > Think you aught to currect this part... "15K SSD" ?? > I think great stuff otherwise. SSD's have to go into RAID systems, think so > to, nice to see someone agreeing on this. > Any thoughts about RAID 6, is it needed on SSD's, large HDD 144GB+ yes but > large SSD - think rebuild time aught to be lower with SSD ?? SSDs are close to computer memory. Adding an external RAID layer to them sounds like a very wrong thing to do to me. Any redundancy should be done in teh SSD itself. Arno
From: lars on 7 Dec 2007 10:54 Arno Wagner wrote: > SSDs are close to computer memory. Adding an external RAID layer to > them sounds like a very wrong thing to do to me. Any redundancy > should be done in teh SSD itself. > > Arno You know that in high end IBM and other servers RAID 1 for the memory is availably. And come to think of it there is still the problem of FRU if doing the redundancy in the SSD itself. So for real life in a sever, no sir RAID still has its advances - otherwise 24x7 can't be done.
From: Arno Wagner on 8 Dec 2007 05:58
Previously lars <lars(a)hesdorf.dk> wrote: > Arno Wagner wrote: >> SSDs are close to computer memory. Adding an external RAID layer to >> them sounds like a very wrong thing to do to me. Any redundancy >> should be done in teh SSD itself. >> >> Arno > You know that in high end IBM and other servers RAID 1 for the memory is > availably. RAID for memory? Are you sure you are not talking about ECC, which is far better for memory? I do not expect this type of really, really bad engineering out of IBM, unless the customer demands it (due to incompetence). Care to list a reference? > And come to think of it there is still the problem of FRU if doing the > redundancy in the SSD itself. So for real life in a sever, no sir RAID > still has its advances - otherwise 24x7 can't be done. RAID is fine. But RAID for SSDs is just a sign that the technology is not being understood. The problem here is that while HDDs a) typically fail as a unit and b) typically notice when they are failing, RAID makes a lot of sense with HDDs. SSDs are more likely to fail in memory locations. A quality SSD can compensate with ECC. If it cannot, then its controller chip is shot )or something very, very unlikely happened) and it may give arbitrary wrong data to the user. RAID does not help at all in this case. Of course this is simplified. Arno |