[ale] Onboard RAID

[Jim Kinney]

Raid often used as first line against data loss due to failure.
It may be only 10 users, but they NEED that data :-)
On Nov 16, 2011 5:27 PM, "Tim Watts" <tim at cliftonfarm.org> wrote:

> I may be out of my league here but I have to ask: Given that it's a
> lightly taxed, 10 user system are you sure RAID is the right solution?
> I usually think RAID for high volume, 24x7 operation systems.  If it's
> for the flexibility of extending the storage space at will I thought
> there was a windows equivalent of LVM out there.  My apologies if I'm
> just exposing the extent of my ignorance.
>
>
> On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 14:12 -0500, Greg Clifton wrote:
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20111116/33218019/attachment-0001.html