Re: "How I built a 2.8TB RAID storage array"... 7 months later


"Parag Baxi" <ghee22@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1132139358.513732.32780@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> I believe you're correct.. the pCI hard you mention (Promise RAID) is
> at least 305 $ on froogle. is RAID necessary on this when it's hosting
> just media files? That depends on user; i don't think it is..
>

Depends on YOUR definition of necessary. If it was *my* data, I'd consider
most of it NOT expendable. Contrast this to my OS installations, which I do
consider expendable. It's only an inconvenience if I lose my OS, but worst
case, I can always rebuild. But if I lose my data (word docs, tax returns,
family photos, audio/video collection, etc.), which may have taken years to
collect, most of it is irreplaceable. That's why I would typically opt for
RAID 1 (mirroring). Yes, it doubles the cost and increases complexity a
bit, but again, it all depends on how much value you place on the data, and
what losing it would mean to you.

> you seem to know your hardware, do you have any clue if what the rest
> of the hardware is compatible with each other?
>

I only skimmed the article, noting the high points. I assume if he got it
working it was compatible.

> and do you think SATA is more important to have than ATA?
>

In the case of data storage, no. Truth be told, SATA offers very little if
anything over ATA, at least today. Most SATA drives are only PATA drives
which have been modified to use the new SATA interface. IOW, they're PATA
drives through and through, same mechanics. The only exceptions we've seen
to date are the WD Raptors, which have been redesigned, and turn @
10,000RPM. Using the Raptors would increase performance, for sure. But in
the case of data, I'm not sure that SATA is worth it. I tend to separate
the needs of the OS from my data, both logically and physically. I consider
SATA, at least today, to be best suited for optimal OS performance. But
when it comes to data, SATA is usually overkill, and simply wasteful, esp.
if you're not using the Raptors. You're simply paying a premium price for
nothing more than an interface change. Most HD drives today, SATA or PATA
(excluding the Raptor) can't do much better than 30-35MB/sec anyway, so they
can't even saturate an old ATA66 interface, let alone ATA100 or ATA133
(making these latter updates pretty much a scam). But even with the Raptors
you won't be seeing anywhere near the SATA's 150MB/sec peak performance,
because as with PATA, even a Raptor can't saturate its new SATA interface,
not even close.

Jim


> Jim wrote:
> > I only have one problem w/ the design -- he commits to the storage
before
> > it's actually used.
> >
> > Problem w/ this is, most of the storage will not be used for a VERY long
> > time (unless he's dumping DVDs or somethin' on a regular basis). A
better
> > design would provide the POTENTIAL for 2.8TB storage, but only COMMIT to
it
> > "on demand". IOW, add HDs only when the demand is present. Perhaps
when
> > some threshold is passed (e.g., < 20% free space). This way, he can
either
> > add the same storage (e.g., 300GB drives) when they're much cheaper in
the
> > future, or larger HDs (500GB ?) at the prices he's paying today. Just
look
> > what he paid for those drives back in Feb., $230! Heck, today these go
for
> > $80-90 (after rebate). And I bet he's not even consumed 30% of the
original
> > capacity, maybe far less.
> >
> > Btw, I'm not sure why he says that Promise RAID PCI cards do not do
"true
> > hardware RAID". Can't speak to the Highpoint or Adaptec cards, but the
> > Promise card does hardware RAID, for sure. Heck, I use a Promise
FastTrak
> > 100 TX2 myself. You configure it on boot-up, using its own BIOS.
Windows,
> > Linux, DOS, etc., are completely unaware of its presence, thus no
> > dependencies. Software based RAID would require Windows (for example)
> > support. In fact, years ago I used Windows NT RAID myself. So I don't
> > understand the author's criticism of the Promise hardware. It's every
bit a
> > hardware RAID solution as 3Ware (which may be better for other reasons,
but
> > not because of software vs. hardware RAID).
> >
> > Anyway, I just not a big believer in designs that commit to large
storage
> > up-front. Most times, you're simply wasting money, lots of it.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
> > "Parag Baxi" <ghee22@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:1131886550.763967.157780@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Shamelessly taken from this thread:
> > >
> >
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt/browse_frm/thread/63ac764decdbfef4/f8479484a5254f5d?q=storage+array&rnum=2#f8479484a5254f5d
> > >
> > > WARNING: I'M A NEWBIE AT BUILDING SYSTEMS. I'm asking for advice.
> > >
> > > I have now read the above thread about 6 times over the past 4 days.
> > > This thread has become a starting point for so many learning points to
> > > undersand exactly what was being written. I have learned a great deal
> > > and am inspired to build one myself.
> > >
> > > My question on this thread is, now that it's been 7 months since its
> > > inception, would YOU do anything different. I'll copy and paste his
> > > specs and add what I want to do. Please keep in mind I'm a newbie at
> > > building systems but I'm very persistent and willing to listen and
> > > question. Now, on we move!
> > >
> > > STORAGE MEDIUM
> > > Actual: Nine 400GB PATA drives;
> > > mine: i want basically same thing, but my controller + case allows for
> > > more extensibility. hoping to buy as they come on sale (individually
> > > or same time)
> > >
> > > CASE
> > > Actual: Antec 4U rackmount case.
> > > mine: Lian LI V PC-V2100A Plus
> > >
> >
(http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16811112093#DetailSpecs)
> > >
> > > MOTHERBOARD
> > > Actual: Gigabyte X5DAL-G Intel server motherboard
> > > mine: i'm really lost here... he lucked out on a cheap deal with ebay.
> > > if i were to buy one from them, it'd be very difficult to search by
> > > motherboard. what other MBs do you recommend?
> > >
> > > CONTROLLER CARDS
> > > Actual: Two 3Ware 7506-4LP cards.
> > > mine: i was thinking, why not use my case to the max and get a
7506-8LP
> > > now, and when it fills up, get another one. the case holds 7 External
> > > 5.25" Drive Bays and 12 Internal 3.5" Drive Bays
> > >
> > > RAM
> > > Actual: 2 GB DDR
> > > mine: i'm thinking 1 GB is enough. DDR or DDR2?
> > > SOFTWARE
> > > Actual: Linux software RAID 5 and JFS.
> > > mine: i'm lost on any other way. i read his link and feel i'm not
> > > ready to experiment
> > > COST
> > > him: 4100 $
> > > willing to shell out 3000 $ and add HDs as they come cheap.
> > >
> > > ASSEMBLY: SOFTWARE
> > > Actual: Fedora Core 3 & JFS
> > > mine: i don't know if Debian can support this hardware, but that's
what
> > > i prefer.'
> > >
> > > ok, again, i don't know much so there is probably 10 things wrong with
> > > each choice i made. I'd appreciate if you tell me why it's wrong. I
> > > appreciate it that you even read this far.
> > >
> > > -- ghee22
> > >
>


.

Relevant Pages