• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

What to do, what to do...

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
C

chops

Registered
​
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Location
Florida
I am in the middle of upgrading my server which carries the duties of hosting two websites, ftp site, is the local file and music server in my house, and is also used for extensive Photoshop CS and Macromedia Dreamweaver work. Oh, and maybe the occasional game or two. (Quake or Tribes)

In short, this system is being designed for constant running, speed, stability and longevity.

Anyway, I'm finally moving up to SATA150 and want MAX speed and performance. So here's my question...

Should I go with a single HD with 16MB of cache which is 250GB (I do not need this much space for the main drive), or should I go with two smaller 80-100GB drives with 8MB cache and put them in RAID0?

I actually like the RAID0 idea a lot, however I have never dealt with RAID before, so it will be a new thing for me which I am perfectly fine with.

So what do you all suggest?

Oh, just an FYI, I got a lot of great recommendations in my other thread about PSU suggestions, so I look forward to what you all have to say in this thread! :welcome:
 
Last edited:
Two drives in raid will always be a bit faster, but one of the newer 16mb SATA 150 drives will definately be faster to the older IDE drives. Its really up to you. One route to go would be to get two 16mb cached SATA 150 hdd's and set them up in raid to where one is backing up the other, that way, since it is a server if one drive goes out you have the other as backup. I cannot remember the # that this type of raid is, but somebody here will surely correct me on this.
 
Don't do a RAID0. Let's just entertain the idea that you might see some noticeable performance improvement by jumping to 0. Now all of your important work is twice as vulnerable to failure, it's a win-win situation for data corruption and spending money.

For maximum speed without going down the incredibly expensive route of SCSI the undefeated champion is a 74GB Raptor and a good 250-500GB drive, two of them in RAID1(mirroring) is a plus, though not necessarily necessary.
 
Well for one thing, like I said earlier, I do not need that big of a drive (250GB+) for my main drive, and especially not two of them. Besides, I can get two 100GB Maxtor drives for the same price as a 250GB drive.

I already have a 120GB and 200GB drive for storage, although the 120 drive only has about 1GB free on it and my 200GB drive is just slightly half used up.

Being that I have a server with quite a bit of information on it, shouldn't I then be using RAID for mirroring at least?

I mean sure, I can buy a 250GB drive, but 200GB's of it would never get used. It would just be waisted space. Not to mention that I'm looking for maximum speed. Some of those Photoshop and Macromedia files can get pretty intense along with both websites being viewed by people at the same time and the FTP getting accessed.

But again, I'm not too familiar with RAID yet, so that's why I'm asking so many questions. I know you guys will be able to guide me in the right direction. :)
 
it is most likely not worth the increased danger of going with RAID 0 for a slight increase in speed. just get the fastest SATA drive you can find.

If you want to be doubly sure that you won't lose your data, get two of those drives and run them in RAID 1 so that you basicly have a backup of everything. If you don't require a backup incase the drive fails, then i'd just stick with the single drive and not bother with RAID at all.
 
Sounds like you need faster seeks, not higher STR. Faster seeks help when you're jumping all over the disk, looking at different files. Higher STR helps when you're dealing with single, large files.

And that points you towards a Raptor.

But yes, if it's information you'd like to keep then RAID 1 isn't a bad idea either.

I'll echo tom10167's thoughts and agree that RAID 0 is probably not what you want. For one thing (I'm assuming you're connected to your server via ethernet) you're always going to be limited by your ethernet link. 100mbs ethernet = 10mbytes/s. Any drive can do 10mb/s. Even at gigabit you're probably limited to 40mb/s (any modern drive can average 50~70mb/s). If you're using jumbo frames you might get it up to ~70mb/s, but a single Raptor will do 70MB/s anyways.

Plus the Raptors are enterprise level drives, with 5yr warranties.

Two 74G Raptors in RAID 1 would be perfect for you.

What motherboard are you using for your server?
 
JCLW said:
Sounds like you need faster seeks, not higher STR. Faster seeks help when you're jumping all over the disk, looking at different files. Higher STR helps when you're dealing with single, large files.

And that points you towards a Raptor.

But yes, if it's information you'd like to keep then RAID 1 isn't a bad idea either.

Plus the Raptors are enterprise level drives, with 5yr warranties.

Two 74G Raptors in RAID 1 would be perfect for you.

What motherboard are you using for your server?
Click to expand...

It's the ECS NForce3-A. My entire system specs are in my sig below. :)
 
Also, I was just wondering...

Say that I buy one Raptor 74GB drive, when I decide to buy another one later on down the road, can I then go to RAID 1 and the first drive will add everything over to the new drive as well, or would I have to format both and start fresh?
 
First, RAID is not a backup. This cannot be stressed enough. Never depend on RAID to keep information safe.

Next, RAID 0 is not redundant. Avoid it like the plague, for the reasons tom mentioned and a couple others. This includes the slight penalty to access time that RAID 0 can cause.

You best option, since this will be a server, would probably be a pair of RAID-1 arrays, one for OS and one for data. Since speed seems to be a criteria, I'd try to go for Raptors, if budget allows. Otherwise, tom's recommendation of a 74GB Raptor as a single for the OS and RAID-1 for the array would be the next best choice.

** Couldn't get back to the reply for awhile**

You should be able to add the second and create the mirror without any problems.

Edit, just noticed that the board has only 2 SATA connectors. You'd need a PCI SATA RAID card for the second array, if you are using SATA for all drives. This isn't greatly expensive, but does add a small amount of complexity to the setup.
 
chops said:
Say that I buy one Raptor 74GB drive, when I decide to buy another one later on down the road, can I then go to RAID 1 and the first drive will add everything over to the new drive as well, or would I have to format both and start fresh?
Click to expand...
I'll let someone who is a little more familiar with the NF3 provide a definite answer on that one, but you should be able to. The intel chipsets will let you, as long as you set up the single drive in RAID mode before you install windows. It's often called RAID migration.

Is this a server that just sits in the corner? Or one you work on as well? If it just sits in the corner I wouldn't even bother about an OS drive - there shouldn't be too much OS activity. Just make a 10GB partition if you want.
 
Xaotic,

I don't need the storage drives in RAID. In fact, I don't even need those for speed as such. I'm just mainly concerned for the OS drive(s) which I have all my editing software on that I use. That's where I would like the extra speed.


JCLW,

My server is also my main machine which sees an awful lot of activity. I use my laptop from time to time to log into the server via "Remote Desktop" to do a few quick things here and there from work or my friend's house. Other than that, I do all of my large Photoshop and Macromedia work directly on the server.

Just an FYI, some of those .psd files get up to 150-300MB depending on what I'm doing at the time. Which reminds me that I also have to think about upgrading my 1GB of ram to 2GB. :bang head
 
tom10167 said:
You can not add a drive in to a RAID, you will have to reformat, this is not chipset etc. dependant, this is just an inherent quality of RAID.
Click to expand...

That's fine. It actually kind of sounds like I probably don't even need RAID. I guess if I go with one of those Raptor drives, it's probably going to be faster than RAID anyway. :rolleyes:
 
Just a thought but you could put 3 100GB drives in RAID 5 so you would have 200GB of storage plus backup if one fails. I don't know if you want to go that far because it would be even more complex and cost more but it certainly would be fast and reliable.
 
JCLW said:
Why does everyone think RAID 5 is fast? It isn't.
Click to expand...

If it makes you feel any better, I don't. :p Sorry, j/k.

Anyway, it seems that I might just go with a single Raptor drive and then use the extra money towards more and better RAM. :)
 
Oh, and maybe the occasional game or two. (Quake or Tribes)
Click to expand...

I think you'all are missing a key component of this wonderful man. He plays old school tribes, :) *Sheds a tear*

But to answer your question originally posted, I'd go with 2 100GB raid 1. Even though it's a little more in the long run it'll be worth it. Plus it will give you a few more options down the road in case you wanted to change things around a little bit. (An extra hd never hurt anyone).

-Twobit326
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
CPU unstable no matter what I do, and it's getting worse
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
mackerel
mackerel
Neuromancer
NVME 4x 4.0 suggestions
2
Replies
27
Views
528
Woomack
W
don256us
SOLVED How to test USB drive?
Replies
6
Views
277
don256us
don256us
xarzu
How do I ensure I properly get text alerts on my Android phone?
Replies
3
Views
197
Zuzzz
Zuzzz
Flamethrower1972
Overclocked Or Not?
2
Replies
29
Views
489
EarthDog
EarthDog
Back