In the division I work in we use HP Proliant DL-360's and run only RAID 1 ( Mirrored ) we only use RAID 0+1 ( 10 ) when we require very fast I/O such as on a heavily used Exchange server or SQL server. Personally I think it is a waste of resources to run AD on RAID 0+1 ( 10 ), it would not hurt to have faster disk I/O, but unnecessary.
Sincerely, Jose Medeiros ADP | National Account Services ProBusiness Division | Information Services 925.737.7967 | 408-449-6621 CELL -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Al Lilianstrom Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 8:16 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions Rick Kingslan wrote: > Add to that - SATA is not for the desktop only. Check out some of the SAN > coming out from most vendors, EMC included. Those drives and connections > look a lot like SATA to me. We have SATA bricks attached to our SAN. They have some issues that, in my opinion, make them not quite 'enterprise' ready. A different vendor just dropped off a rack full of disks (SATA and FC) for us to test as part of a NAS investigation. The SATA based arrays are slower than the FC based arrays. Not as much as they used to be but still significantly slower. That said - we haven't moved anything real important to the SATA volumes yet. Mainly archives and temp storage for data reprocessing right now. al > Rick [msft] > -- > Posting is provided "AS IS", and confers no rights or warranties ... > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ASB > Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 7:13 AM > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > I don't have a problem with SATA (an upgrade from PATA) if used as designed. > It's designed for desktop storage. Not that it can't be adjusted to > server/enterprise, but it's price point and architecture are intended for > desktops (i.e. cheap but not as reliable as a shared resource). > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Depends on the size of the "enterprise" > > SATA has its place in the server segments of smaller orgs for sure. > It's not too long ago that Windows and Intel processors were considered "not > designed for the enterprise"... > > > -ASB > FAST, CHEAP, SECURE: Pick Any TWO > http://www.ultratech-llc.com/KB/ > > > On 11/7/05, Al Mulnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> That's a desktop user? The apple desktop? >> >> I don't have a problem with SATA (an upgrade from PATA) if used as > designed. >> It's designed for desktop storage. Not that it can't be adjusted to >> server/enterprise, but it's price point and architecture are intended >> for desktops (i.e. cheap but not as reliable as a shared resource). >> >> Used appropriately, I'm quite happy with it. But it's intended to be >> cheap and replaceable. >> >> Cheap, fast, reliable - pick two (or something like that ;) >> >> That shouldn't last if history is any indication, but for now I'll try >> not to build too many centrally required applications on that >> technology unless I can put a lot of abstraction in front of it (large >> pools that aren't bothered by the loss of several components at a >> time.) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> From: "Rob MOIR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Reply-To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org >>> To: <ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org>,<ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org> >>> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions >>> Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 18:36:10 -0000 >>> >>> I've deployed SATA for storage of large files in Apple XRaid units in >>> a Raid 5+1 config, and so far so good. Ask me in 3 years if I'm still >>> just as happy ;-) but it was the only way to give the user what they >>> wanted inside the budget we had. >>> >>> One advantage of the XRaid is that it's fitted out from the get go to >>> use SATA disks and the only reason you'd ever have to do anything to >>> it is to replace a drive that you already know has gone bad. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Al Mulnick >>> Sent: Mon 07/11/2005 17:34 >>> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org >>> Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions >>> >>> <silly no-hair-color alert> >>> SATA == Desktop drives. >>> >>> They weren't originally concepted to be enterprise class storage. I >>> see them as being back-engineered to be used this way, but most of >>> what I've seen has been to deploy them as a JBOD in situations where >>> you can absorb the continuous loss of hardware and not impact >>> performance and availability. >>> Typically in pools of disk and hsm solutions (what is it that hsm >>> is called now? ILM? :) >>> >>> If you plan to deploy DAS solutions (internal or external), SATA is >>> not likely the way to go right now. You may want to wait a bit >>> longer if the data is important. >>> >>> >>> For large pools of inexpensive disks, SATA might be worthwhile to >>> investigate if you have a large loading bay, a good support >>> agreement, and close access to the highway. >>> >>> -ajm >>> >>> >>> >>>> From: "Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]" >>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> Reply-To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org >>>> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org >>>> Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions >>>> Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:13:19 -0800 >>>> >>>> <Stupid blonde alert> >>>> >>>> I personally have SATA experience in the tower/desktop world but >>>> none in the rack units. Are the physical connections any stronger >>>> in the rack world? >>>> >>>> I like SCSI and IDE not only for their proven track record [server >>>> and desktop respectively] but because the dang cables don't get >>>> knocked off each time I reach into the case. Those cable >>>> connections on the back of the SATA drives are a little worrying. >>>> I've accidentally bumped the connection off my workstation at home >>>> twice while adding the Happauge >>> card >>>> and what not. >>>> >>>> In SBSland early on we had issues with them getting loaded up, if >>>> they >>> are >>>> underpowered, we're seeing a bit of bottlenecks, and as one of the >>>> SBS support gang said out of Mothership Los Colinas, if your vendor >>>> won't guarantee that equipment for 3 years, do you really want to >>>> put that data on that device? >>>> >>>> So far the SATAs that we have running around in SBSland servers are >>>> okay, but I'll report back in another 2 years and let you know. >>>> >>>> I can't speak for the Dell rack stuff, but the Dell tower >>>> stuff...lemme just say I'm glad Brian steered me towards HP. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Rob MOIR wrote: >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al >>>>>> Mulnick >>>>>> Sent: 07 November 2005 15:13 >>>>>> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org >>>>>> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Bottom line, I would guess that two HP 360's (SCSI; I haven't >>>>>> been made comfortable with SATA reliability yet) or 140's with >>>>>> 1GB of memory each would be more than needed based on those > parameters. >>>>> I'm glad to hear someone else say this. SATA can work but you need >>>>> to look closely at what you're buying and what the manufacturer > recommends. >>>>> If the manufacturer doesn't trust their own products for the sort >>>>> of >>>>> 24*7 hammering you often get in a server then why bet against >>>>> them? Who are we to assume we know a product better than the >>>>> people who designed and built it? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> If you virtualize anything on top of that, some other >>>>>> considerations would be needed of course. (or Dell or IBM equivalent > of course). >>>>> I'd still personally be uncomfortable with virtualising all my >>>>> DCs, even onto different physical virtual server hosts, I just >>>>> don't believe in adding extra layers of complexity to fundamental >>>>> network services if I can help it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days? >>>> http://www.threatcode.com >>>> > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ -- Al Lilianstrom CD/CSS/CSI [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
