![]() | Register | FAQ | Members | Social Groups | User Map | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
Hardware
Hardware forum sponsored by |
| | | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search Thread | Language |
| | #16 |
![]() Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 1,697
Thanks: 59
Thanked 250 Times in 227 Posts
Blog Entries: 2 Rep Power: 54 | Yes the E200i is a proper controller, I actually have one of these servers at a site that I work at and it copes with a couple of arrays one in SAS and the other in SATA. You can buy upgraded cache memory chips for this server which do enhance the performance a lot and would be worth you looking in to, I think that they may also enable extra features of the controller but I can't remember just now. |
| |
| | #17 |
![]() Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Northumberland
Posts: 11
Thanks: 6
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 0 | extra feature is that it supports 15K SAS SFF hot-plug drives, without it limited to 10K ones, now how much of a difference would that make to performance on file and print RAID 1, given the larger cache too? ![]() "far end of a fart"! |
| |
| | #18 | |
![]() Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 1,697
Thanks: 59
Thanked 250 Times in 227 Posts
Blog Entries: 2 Rep Power: 54 | Quote:
Adding more cache will improve its performance by a significant margin when it comes to multiple users all trying to save and open small files at the same time. It can also help speed up array rebuilds in certain circumstances as the controller can offload more data onto the cache and not have to disturb the rebuild so often with read or write requests. | |
| |
| The Following User Says Thank You to SYNACK For This Useful Post: | pjm1974 (10-08-2008) |
| | #19 |
![]() Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Northumberland
Posts: 11
Thanks: 6
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 0 | So I can afford 4 300GB drives in my config but will be using only the E200i controller 128Mb cache, so final question: 2 300GB pairs RAID 1 or 3 300GB drives in a RAID 5 what do you think? |
| |
| | #20 | |
![]() Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 1,697
Thanks: 59
Thanked 250 Times in 227 Posts
Blog Entries: 2 Rep Power: 54 | Quote:
As this is a storage server I would personally go with the 3 drives in RAID 5 configuration as this will be more robust and much easier to expand. You can still partition off an area for the OS. I would definatly try to get the extra cache module with this option as it will up the speed vastly and make it easier to mess with the arrays later. In the past I have even lowered the processor spec of servers slightly to allow enough money to pay for this option. For a file server I would heavily recommend it. | |
| |
| |
| | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Replacing Fileserver. | Geoff | Hardware | 12 | 02-05-2008 05:55 PM |
| Access Fileserver Data via SharePoint? | FatBoy | Web Development | 7 | 30-04-2008 04:43 PM |
| Slow Fileserver Performance (2003) | disinfo | Windows | 4 | 21-11-2006 12:31 AM |
| FileServer Performance Monitoring (Specifically 2k3) | disinfo | Windows | 1 | 14-03-2006 01:54 PM |
| Help!!! Fileserver's stopped responding | indiegirl | Windows | 11 | 09-01-2006 04:11 PM |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | Search Thread |
|
|






