+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 90
Hardware Thread, Building a new SSD based file server in Technical; Originally Posted by twin--turbo I would never run a server without raid, quite simply if a disk fails then the ...
  1. #16

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,663
    Thank Post
    516
    Thanked 2,446 Times in 1,894 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    831
    Quote Originally Posted by twin--turbo View Post
    I would never run a server without raid,

    quite simply if a disk fails then the server continues to run until the disk rebuilds into the raid or a new disk is rebuilt. Compare that to having to rebuild the server from scratch.

    Rob
    But in the world of virtual servers and 'whole server' image copying for backup, rebuilding wouldn't need to happen - all that would need to happen is a copy of the backed up image to new hardware and bingo bongo, you're up and running again.

  2. Thanks to localzuk from:

    zag (16th October 2012)

  3. #17

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nottingham
    Posts
    572
    Thank Post
    38
    Thanked 114 Times in 104 Posts
    Rep Power
    46
    Check how much data you write to your current file server on a daily basis (not sure how you'd do this) - this would give you a clue as to estimated life of drive (Intel publish the write endurance of their SSDs). To look to extend the life, if you can afford to, overprovision the drives, this gives more space for garbage collection and wear levelling, less storage space, but reportedly longer lifespan.

    I would think about having 2 servers with a single SSD in each, running DFS, then, for your backup server, have spinning rust - your backups should send data in large chunks, rather than small random accesses which your file server will have to deal with - throughput to spinning rust isn't too bad, and if you have 4x drives in RAID10 you ensure your backup data is secure, get speed benefits of RAID0 and you should have more space to be able to have a longer backup retention.

    Of course, if one of your DFS servers goes down, get it back up as a priority, or, have 3 DFS servers (possibly one in a separate building - though you need to ensure you have decent link speed) and then having one down is less of an issue.

    From the size of the drives and as they're being used as for fileserver only, I don't think 10GbE would be of much benefit (how much of your current connections do you currently use)? If you were looking to have the servers as SAN for Hyper-V (Server 2012 with it's hyper-v using SMB - if I've read that correctly on the brief looks I've had at Server 2012 Hyper-V), then 10GbE may be beneficial.

  4. Thanks to Willott from:

    zag (16th October 2012)

  5. #18

    Domino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Bromley
    Posts
    4,126
    Thank Post
    215
    Thanked 1,255 Times in 786 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    But in the world of virtual servers and 'whole server' image copying for backup, rebuilding wouldn't need to happen - all that would need to happen is a copy of the backed up image to new hardware and bingo bongo, you're up and running again.
    But, in the real world, you can't virtualise *every* machine

    ..and you'd still be running RAID on your shared vm storage, otherwise you'd be restoring backups fairly often....

  6. #19
    gshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Essex
    Posts
    2,651
    Thank Post
    164
    Thanked 217 Times in 200 Posts
    Rep Power
    67
    Personally I'd only use enterprise grade kit for enterprise applications but maybe I'm just cautious. I remember seeing an EMC presentation where they compared standard SSDs to storage-grade ones and they were showing how consumer drives wear out much quicker in high read\write environments (although you'd expect them to say that!). Think it was to do with consumer drives writing in two directions and enterprise only uses one to save wear on the flash (although memory is very hazy on this)

    No RAID on a file server seems very risky, although you can restore from backup would your users tolerate the downtime of losing a 600GB file server VM because one of the drives failed and then takes however long to bring it back up? Seems like you're sacrificing one of your layers of data protection for speed, is it worth the gamble? Saying that if this is a physical machine it'll take even longer to restore so it's an even bigger gamble.

  7. #20

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nottingham
    Posts
    572
    Thank Post
    38
    Thanked 114 Times in 104 Posts
    Rep Power
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by gshaw View Post
    Personally I'd only use enterprise grade kit for enterprise applications but maybe I'm just cautious. I remember seeing an EMC presentation where they compared standard SSDs to storage-grade ones and they were showing how consumer drives wear out much quicker in high read\write environments (although you'd expect them to say that!). Think it was to do with consumer drives writing in two directions and enterprise only uses one to save wear on the flash (although memory is very hazy on this)
    I think they may have been talking about MLC vs SLC (multi level cell vs single level cell) NAND, the actual memory data is stored on. The SSD Company - STEC - CellCare Technology talks about Stec's technology to extend the life of MLC (there are other manufacturers who use other techs) - but it all depends on how much data you write to the device - EMC look at a point of view of a large enterprise who write several hundred GB of data each day, rather than a school who may write 5-10 GB data per day, not much of an SSD, so as long as wear levelling works correctly, the life of the drive may be longer than the manufacturer suggests - this very much depends on the actual amount of data written. As can be seen on the Stec page, enterprise devices have a much longer working life, but I know of a large number of comercial hosting and service providers who use Intel 320s in their servers.

    Quote Originally Posted by gshaw View Post
    No RAID on a file server seems very risky, although you can restore from backup would your users tolerate the downtime of losing a 600GB file server VM because one of the drives failed and then takes however long to bring it back up? Seems like you're sacrificing one of your layers of data protection for speed, is it worth the gamble? Saying that if this is a physical machine it'll take even longer to restore so it's an even bigger gamble.
    The idea of using DFSR - data replicated and accessible from multiple nodes. If a machine goes down, force remove from DFS, replace the disk, stick a new copy of windows on, add it as a DFSR replication target, add as a DFS folder target. Fairly quick and simple.
    Last edited by Willott; 16th October 2012 at 10:01 AM.

  8. 2 Thanks to Willott:

    gshaw (16th October 2012), zag (16th October 2012)

  9. #21

    twin--turbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Carlisle
    Posts
    2,334
    Thank Post
    1
    Thanked 381 Times in 340 Posts
    Rep Power
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by Domino View Post
    But, in the real world, you can't virtualise *every* machine

    ..and you'd still be running RAID on your shared vm storage, otherwise you'd be restoring backups fairly often....
    Exactly.

    In our mixed environment we have

    Stand alone servers
    VM hosts with Local Storage
    VM Hosts with shared storage and HA.

    The last one is the least worry. But they still have raid on them.

    Rob

  10. #22
    zag
    zag is offline
    zag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    3,762
    Thank Post
    897
    Thanked 416 Times in 350 Posts
    Blog Entries
    12
    Rep Power
    86
    Excellent discussion chaps, really given me some great ideas.

    I've been using the intel 320's for a while now and they are great drives. Our file server probably gets less than 5gb written to it a day so I really don't think the write lifetime will be a problem. I'm sure I read somewhere you would have to write data 24/7 for something like 7 years to reach the limit.

    We have had our Sims server on an SSD for 2 years now and that probably has got more IO activity. No problems so far (touch wood).

    Our environment is moving towards Hyper-V for all machines except the domain controllers.

  11. #23

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    5,636
    Thank Post
    846
    Thanked 885 Times in 733 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    326
    Interesting discussion. I have to say I'm in the camp of not running a server without some form of RAID. I'd also be wary of the read/write limits on a file server. A couple of questions do come to mind (I could google the answers...)

    1) Whats the price difference between Enterprise grade SSD's and 15k SAS drives?
    2) Do Hybrid drives (standard drives with an SSD cache) work in RAID?

    My gut instinct is that current SSD's probably couldn't compete with SAS in terms of price/performance?

  12. #24

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,663
    Thank Post
    516
    Thanked 2,446 Times in 1,894 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    831
    The price difference is a *lot*. Intel 320 600GB is about £500. A HP enterprise 600GB is about £2,000.

  13. Thanks to localzuk from:

    zag (16th October 2012)

  14. #25
    gshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Essex
    Posts
    2,651
    Thank Post
    164
    Thanked 217 Times in 200 Posts
    Rep Power
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    The price difference is a *lot*. Intel 320 600GB is about £500. A HP enterprise 600GB is about £2,000.
    Aren't the HP Enterprise drives apparently really slow for the price as well, sure I heard that somewhere recently

    DFS is one of those technologies that sounds wonderful but when I read threads where it's clogged up with a 20GB backlog it doesn't inspire confidence, maybe that's just the unlucky ones?

  15. #26

    twin--turbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Carlisle
    Posts
    2,334
    Thank Post
    1
    Thanked 381 Times in 340 Posts
    Rep Power
    150
    SSD use in servers is not just down to the drives,

    Replacing SAS with SSD in your old shelf will work, have a bit of performance upgrade but is susceptible to the killing of SSD as mentioned, and the performance will not make best use of the SSD.

    PROPER SSD San Controllers for raid will both maximise the performance of the SSD and increase the lifespan of the drive.

    Hence they cost a $%^$& fortune.

    Rob

  16. #27

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    5,636
    Thank Post
    846
    Thanked 885 Times in 733 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    The price difference is a *lot*. Intel 320 600GB is about £500. A HP enterprise 600GB is about £2,000.
    Interesting price for an Enterprise Grade SSD! Ouch!

    Here's the thing though, a 600Gb SAS2 drive is £250 (WD XE 600GB 2.5" SAS Internal Hard Drive (WD6001BKHG) - www.misco.co.uk). Put in a decent RAID which is going to be faster, more reliable and cheaper? the SAS or the SSD?

    I'm looking at SSD's now for desktops and laptops. It's part of my min. spec for new machines, but servers... Still don't think the time is right. Even at the other end of the scale I'm sure WD Velocoraptor's or SSD Hybrids would be a better bet.

  17. #28

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,663
    Thank Post
    516
    Thanked 2,446 Times in 1,894 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    831
    Quote Originally Posted by tmcd35 View Post
    Interesting price for an Enterprise Grade SSD! Ouch!

    Here's the thing though, a 600Gb SAS2 drive is £250 (WD XE 600GB 2.5" SAS Internal Hard Drive (WD6001BKHG) - www.misco.co.uk). Put in a decent RAID which is going to be faster, more reliable and cheaper? the SAS or the SSD?

    I'm looking at SSD's now for desktops and laptops. It's part of my min. spec for new machines, but servers... Still don't think the time is right. Even at the other end of the scale I'm sure WD Velocoraptor's or SSD Hybrids would be a better bet.
    Faster? The SSD by far. More reliable? Unknown at the moment. Cheaper? SAS.

  18. #29
    zag
    zag is offline
    zag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    3,762
    Thank Post
    897
    Thanked 416 Times in 350 Posts
    Blog Entries
    12
    Rep Power
    86
    My experience on all the clients we run in school is the SSDs have been far more reliable than hard disks.

    Our limited experience of SSD's in servers. One heavily used webserver and one Sims server has also been good over the last few years. Both using Intel X-25m drives. The web server particularly had about a 2000% increase in mysql speed. Amazing and surely the future.

  19. #30

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nottingham
    Posts
    572
    Thank Post
    38
    Thanked 114 Times in 104 Posts
    Rep Power
    46
    Out of interest - CrystalDiskInfo - Software - Crystal Dew World somewhere within that it should give you a drive life remaining - would be interested to see on your SIMs server.

    Cheers

    Will

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 27th May 2011, 08:42 PM
  2. How much to build a new server?
    By TechSupp in forum Hardware
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 18th January 2011, 09:08 AM
  3. New File Server
    By kevin_lane in forum Windows Server 2008
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 26th March 2010, 08:40 AM
  4. Quote for new file server
    By altecsole in forum Our Advertisers
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 26th October 2009, 11:03 PM
  5. Getting FC4 file server to pick up new users
    By philjones2000 in forum *nix
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 16th February 2007, 11:49 AM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •