[ale] Onboard RAID

[Greg Clifton]

Thanks Mike,

More details this is a new server (Single Proc Xeon X3440) with only 10
users, so it won't be heavily taxed. Moving the storage to a different
Linux box really isn't an option either. We're replacing an OLD server
running NT with the 2008 server.

What you are saying is that SOFTWARE is "more better" in all cases than the
BIOS based RAID configuration. OK, but does Server 2008 support RAID 10? If
not, we must rely on the BIOS RAID. If we must do that then the question
falls back to which is the better RAID option [under Windows]. I saw
something on some RAID forum that said the Adaptec was for Linux OS and the
Intel for MS OS. Since Adaptec drivers are built into Linux, that at least
makes some sense.

Regards,
Greg

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Michael B. Trausch <mike at trausch.us> wrote:

> On 11/16/2011 01:20 PM, Greg Clifton wrote:
> > OK folks, put down your flame throwers, but we're building a Windows
> > 2008 server w/ mirrored boot drives and 4 2TB drives for data in a RAID
> > 10 configuration for a customer. Modern motherboards give you the option
> > of running Intel Matrix RAID or Adaptec RAID in the BIOS and I assume
> > you can also run Windows total software RAID. So my question for the ALE
> > brain trust is which is the better/best option and why so (and no
> > running a Linux server is NOT an option in this case)?
>
> Regardless of the operating system you are using, these days you want to
> use some form of pure software RAID over hardware RAID (or "fakeraid",
> that is, BIOS-provided software RAID).  The reason is that software RAID
> layouts are more portable (for example, one can use Windows Dynamic
> Disks even on Linux systems because the Linux kernel understands the
> format used on them).
>
> Given the power and bandwidth provided inside of today's modern systems,
> you should not see any problems with doing RAID entirely in software,
> and in the event of catastrophic failure the fact that the format is
> well-known and understood makes it easier to effect recovery if ever it
> became necessary.  (Of course, it never should, but things happen in
> this crazy world...)
>
> If you will always have an up-to-date backup system, then it doesn't
> matter; offload to a hardware RAID controller if you have one as it will
> save bandwidth on the computer's buses, but know that recovering the
> data from the drives may one day be impossible, and if you have any
> sizable window between successful backup run and complete array failure,
> you might well be hosed in such a situation.
>
> Ideally, you would separate that component out.  You can use those same
> drives in some other box.  For example, you could have a small Linux box
> that uses Linux software RAID, and simply expose the RAID device to a
> dedicated network interface via iSCSI.  Then Windows 2008 can use that
> iSCSI device for its own storage.  You get both upsides, then: bandwidth
> savings (Windows isn't worrying about issuing writes multiple times, for
> example) and a well-understood disk format for the RAID array's metadata
> and data layout.  Plus, it leaves you options for later: for example,
> you could use LVM to put two disks together, and use RAID to mirror
> that, such that now you would have the space to perform block-snapshots
> if needed, e.g., for backup purposes (which means you don't have to
> worry about using Microsoft's heavy backup program to perform the backup).
>
>        --- Mike
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20111116/8a3d735f/attachment.html