Server pc - HDD question

Panja · Aug 3, 2006

I'm setting up a server pc at the moment.
I have 2x 320gb SATA disks and I do have a spare IDE drive.

What would be my best option?
1. Put in the 2x 320gb and make 2 partitions. (1 for OS and 1 for DATA).
2. Put in the IDE and install the OS on that and make the 2x SATA disks for DATA only

Bare in mind that this server pc will be in a gigabit network and it will be used for file serving, remote rarring and quickpar (rar files will be unrarred on the server pc through a pc connected to the server pc).

synthetic_fenix · Aug 3, 2006

You need any kind of redundancy?

Panja · Aug 3, 2006

No.
I have an external HDD (USB) which will be used for backups once and a while

synthetic_fenix · Aug 3, 2006

Then I would go with the IDE drive as your OS drive and the other two as yoru data storage drives.

Panja · Aug 3, 2006

The IDE drive wont be a bottleneck for remote rarring, quickparring etc in my gigabit network?

synthetic_fenix · Aug 3, 2006

I highly Doubt it.

Bios24 · Aug 3, 2006

Depending on how many people are accessing it you might get some performance gain by putting the 2x320's in Raid 0, especially over gigabit.

I would also agree to just putting the OS on the IDE drive though.

synthetic_fenix · Aug 3, 2006

I would have to disagree with the Raid 0 on the data drives. You drop your MTBF in half and if one drive goes you lose all of your data. If you leave them as separate drives, you lose a drives you dont lose everything all at once.

In my fileserver that is in my sig, I am Running Raid 5, and I would never even think about running raid0 in it.

Panja · Aug 3, 2006

I'm thinking of running a RAID 5 setup too.
But I cant seem to find any motherboard (for socket 754) that supports RAID 5.
(only RAID 0, 1 & 0+1)

Only the EPoX EP-8U1697GLI Socket 754 ULi M1697 motherboard supports RAID5 but I cant find it anywhere here in The Netherlands...

nikhsub1 · Aug 3, 2006

Get a raid card that supports raid 5 then... but you need at least 3 drives for raid 5 and it is dreadfully slow in my experience... raid 1 would be good but you lost the capacity of 1 whole drive. Read speeds are increased with raid 1 as both drives are read simultaneously similar to raid 0, write speeds are slower however...

emboss · Aug 3, 2006

If you're going to do RAID-5, either buy a decent hardware RAID-5 card or use the OS's RAID-5 functionality. Onboard RAID-5 is basically no different than OS RAID in terms of performance, IMO so there's not point shopping for a motherboard that supports RAID-5.

Panja · Aug 7, 2006

emboss said:
If you're going to do RAID-5, either buy a decent hardware RAID-5 card or use the OS's RAID-5 functionality. Onboard RAID-5 is basically no different than OS RAID in terms of performance, IMO so there's not point shopping for a motherboard that supports RAID-5.

@emboss (or someone else that can explain)
Why is a motherboard with RAID5 not good?
Can you explain that to me?

@synthetic_fenix
Do you use RAID5 on your motherboard or a add-in card?

emboss · Aug 7, 2006

I'm not saying that motheboard RAID5 is not good (though depending on the situation, it may not do what you'd want both performance- and data-security-wise since it's just software RAID5) - just that there's no point in going hunting for a motherboard that specifically has it since it's basically no different than the RAID5 support from your OS of choice. It's certainly not worth spending extra money on or sacrificing other features for.

Basically, the only reason to use fakeraid RAID5 (basically any RAID-5 product that does not have an onboard processor and cache) is if you need to boot two OSes on the same machine and both need to access the array. Otherwise, either go expensive with hardware RAID5 or just use what the OS provides.

Panja · Aug 7, 2006

Ok, thanks for your answer.
Which RAID card would you recommend? (an affordable one

)

emboss · Aug 7, 2006

Heh, there's no such thing as a good affordable card unfortunately (unless you're just looking for bulk SATA ports).

If you are actually going to go out and buy a card for it's RAID5 ability, the minimum worth buying is something like the Promise FastTrak S150 SX4, since it actually has a decent XOR offload engine (the TX4, while it has an XOR offload engine, is dog slow and only worth it if you're putting it into a pretty old server). There's probably a SATA II version of it out now. I'm not sure what other manufacturers make cards with and XOR engine but no CPU but I'd be surprised if the SX4 was the only one.

Next step up from that and you hit full hardware RAID from the likes of 3Ware and Areca, with corresponding price-tags.

Panja · Aug 8, 2006

Yes, I was afraid of that.
Good stuff costs good money

But is RAID5 on for instance the Asus motherboard mentioned above really that slow...?
Is it slower than 1 (normal, not in raid) sata drive?

Also bare in mind that its a home server PC, so it will not serve more than a few (2 -3) people at the same time.
Though I like a little speed.

klingens · Aug 8, 2006

You are running a fileserver with a really beefy CPU. You have the spare cycles to to RAID fully in software. All onboard RAIDs suck. All of them, period.

The problem with onboard "fakeraid" is not its speed per se: it's the same as pure software RAID. CPU usage is the same too. The trouble is: if this mobo ever dies, your data is 90% gone:if you can't get exactly the same RAID chip again your data won't be accessible anymore. You also need a special and supported driver for your OS of choice. So there are no advantages but several disadvantages. So, except for giving vendors feature bullet points, what's the use of onboard?

Btw: if you have a GBit fileserver you need a really good GBit NIC, usually onboard ones aren't that great.

Panja · Aug 8, 2006

Thanks for your reply klingens.

I will be running Windows Server 2003 on an AMD 3200+ (socket 754) with 1gb ram.
So you say I can just use 3x HDD's and run them in RAID5 under Windows Server 2003 and have the same performance/speed as the RAID5 with an onboard chip? (sorry for asking so much I just want to have a clear picture for myself)

I have a seperate Gigabit NIC, I know the onboard are pretty sh*t.
It's an Edimax EN-9230TX-32 (with a Realtek Chip, I think)

emboss · Aug 8, 2006

Panja said:
So you say I can just use 3x HDD's and run them in RAID5 under Windows Server 2003 and have the same performance/speed as the RAID5 with an onboard chip?

Correct.

Panja said:
I have a seperate Gigabit NIC, I know the onboard are pretty sh*t.
It's an Edimax EN-9230TX-32 (with a Realtek Chip, I think)

Indeed - a RTL 8169S. Not much, if any, better than onboard unfortunately (and in fact is often used as an onboard controller), and doesn't support 9K jumbo frames. Ideally you want something more like an Intel Pro/1000 MT or one of the nice NEC based ones (forgotten which cards use this).

Panja · Aug 8, 2006

So my NIC's are sh*t ?
Damn..
Wont I benefit of the gigabit network with the Edimax NIC?
Is it better to just use a 100mbit network?

or

Intel PRO/1000 GT Network PCI Adaptor (10/100/1000Mbps) any good?

Server pc - HDD question

Member

Risen From the Ashes

Member

Risen From the Ashes

Member

Risen From the Ashes

Member

Risen From the Ashes

Member

Unoriginal Macho Moderator

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads