<p>Raid often used as first line against data loss due to failure.<br>
It may be only 10 users, but they NEED that data :-)</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Nov 16, 2011 5:27 PM, "Tim Watts" <<a href="mailto:tim@cliftonfarm.org">tim@cliftonfarm.org</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I may be out of my league here but I have to ask: Given that it's a<br>
lightly taxed, 10 user system are you sure RAID is the right solution?<br>
I usually think RAID for high volume, 24x7 operation systems. If it's<br>
for the flexibility of extending the storage space at will I thought<br>
there was a windows equivalent of LVM out there. My apologies if I'm<br>
just exposing the extent of my ignorance.<br>
<br>
<br>
On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 14:12 -0500, Greg Clifton wrote:<br>
> Thanks Mike,<br>
><br>
><br>
> More details this is a new server (Single Proc Xeon X3440) with only<br>
> 10 users, so it won't be heavily taxed. Moving the storage to a<br>
> different Linux box really isn't an option either. We're replacing an<br>
> OLD server running NT with the 2008 server.<br>
><br>
><br>
> What you are saying is that SOFTWARE is "more better" in all cases<br>
> than the BIOS based RAID configuration. OK, but does Server 2008<br>
> support RAID 10? If not, we must rely on the BIOS RAID. If we must do<br>
> that then the question falls back to which is the better RAID option<br>
> [under Windows]. I saw something on some RAID forum that said the<br>
> Adaptec was for Linux OS and the Intel for MS OS. Since Adaptec<br>
> drivers are built into Linux, that at least makes some sense.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Regards,<br>
> Greg<br>
><br>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Michael B. Trausch <<a href="mailto:mike@trausch.us">mike@trausch.us</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
><br>
> On 11/16/2011 01:20 PM, Greg Clifton wrote:<br>
> > OK folks, put down your flame throwers, but we're building a<br>
> Windows<br>
> > 2008 server w/ mirrored boot drives and 4 2TB drives for<br>
> data in a RAID<br>
> > 10 configuration for a customer. Modern motherboards give<br>
> you the option<br>
> > of running Intel Matrix RAID or Adaptec RAID in the BIOS and<br>
> I assume<br>
> > you can also run Windows total software RAID. So my question<br>
> for the ALE<br>
> > brain trust is which is the better/best option and why so<br>
> (and no<br>
> > running a Linux server is NOT an option in this case)?<br>
><br>
><br>
> Regardless of the operating system you are using, these days<br>
> you want to<br>
> use some form of pure software RAID over hardware RAID (or<br>
> "fakeraid",<br>
> that is, BIOS-provided software RAID). The reason is that<br>
> software RAID<br>
> layouts are more portable (for example, one can use Windows<br>
> Dynamic<br>
> Disks even on Linux systems because the Linux kernel<br>
> understands the<br>
> format used on them).<br>
><br>
> Given the power and bandwidth provided inside of today's<br>
> modern systems,<br>
> you should not see any problems with doing RAID entirely in<br>
> software,<br>
> and in the event of catastrophic failure the fact that the<br>
> format is<br>
> well-known and understood makes it easier to effect recovery<br>
> if ever it<br>
> became necessary. (Of course, it never should, but things<br>
> happen in<br>
> this crazy world...)<br>
><br>
> If you will always have an up-to-date backup system, then it<br>
> doesn't<br>
> matter; offload to a hardware RAID controller if you have one<br>
> as it will<br>
> save bandwidth on the computer's buses, but know that<br>
> recovering the<br>
> data from the drives may one day be impossible, and if you<br>
> have any<br>
> sizable window between successful backup run and complete<br>
> array failure,<br>
> you might well be hosed in such a situation.<br>
><br>
> Ideally, you would separate that component out. You can use<br>
> those same<br>
> drives in some other box. For example, you could have a small<br>
> Linux box<br>
> that uses Linux software RAID, and simply expose the RAID<br>
> device to a<br>
> dedicated network interface via iSCSI. Then Windows 2008 can<br>
> use that<br>
> iSCSI device for its own storage. You get both upsides, then:<br>
> bandwidth<br>
> savings (Windows isn't worrying about issuing writes multiple<br>
> times, for<br>
> example) and a well-understood disk format for the RAID<br>
> array's metadata<br>
> and data layout. Plus, it leaves you options for later: for<br>
> example,<br>
> you could use LVM to put two disks together, and use RAID to<br>
> mirror<br>
> that, such that now you would have the space to perform<br>
> block-snapshots<br>
> if needed, e.g., for backup purposes (which means you don't<br>
> have to<br>
> worry about using Microsoft's heavy backup program to perform<br>
> the backup).<br>
><br>
> --- Mike<br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Ale mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Ale@ale.org">Ale@ale.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale" target="_blank">http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale</a><br>
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at<br>
> <a href="http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo" target="_blank">http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Ale mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Ale@ale.org">Ale@ale.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale" target="_blank">http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale</a><br>
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at<br>
> <a href="http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo" target="_blank">http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo</a><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ale mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ale@ale.org">Ale@ale.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale" target="_blank">http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale</a><br>
See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at<br>
<a href="http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo" target="_blank">http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo</a><br>
</blockquote></div>