Re: Hardware
Hello, Maykel Moya a écrit : Those of you who run large imap/pop boxes with either Cyrus or Courier could send me your hardware configuration? If it is not already planned, could you please send a summary of the answers on the list? It could be interesting for many of us. Cheers, -- Emmanuel Halbwachs Labo. de Photonique et Nanostructures tel : (+33)1 69 63 61 34 CNRS UPR 20 fax : (+33)1 69 63 60 06 Route de Nozay F 91460 Marcoussis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Hardware
Maykel Moya a écrit : Those of you who run large imap/pop boxes with either Cyrus or Courier could send me your hardware configuration? If it is not already planned, could you please send a summary of the answers on the list? It could be interesting for many of us. Yes, of course, when I said 'send me' I'd saying 'send to the list' ;) I'm looking for hardware configuration because after all, there is no (so much) serious benchmarking of different imap servers performing on large setup. Google just returns a bunch of opinion of sysadmin, in some cases, biased :) Regards mike
Re: Hardware
On Tuesday 07 September 2004 16:40, Maykel Moya wrote: Those of you who run large imap/pop boxes with either Cyrus or Courier could send me your hardware configuration? Thanks in advance mike There is a list of installations on the cyrus wiki page which you might find interessting: http://acs-wiki.andrew.cmu.edu/twiki/bin/view/Cyrus/SampleCyrusHardware and the CMU's own installation: http://acs-wiki.andrew.cmu.edu/twiki/bin/view/Cyrus/CarnegieMellonCyrusInstallation regards, Timo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: hardware/optimizations for a download-webserver
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:49:26PM -0400, Stephen Gran wrote: This one time, at band camp, Michelle Konzack said: Am 2004-07-19 10:01:06, schrieb Russell Coker: On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 05:59, Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thinking of the expected 50KB/sec download rate i calculated a theoretical maximum of ~250 simultaneous downloads -- am i right ? With a 100 MBit NIC you can have a maximum of 7 MByte/sec What makes you think so? Other people get 10MB/s. I've benchmarked some of my machines at 9MB/s. I do not belive it ! Maybe with UDP but not TCP it is not possibel from the protocol. I have high performanc NIC's and some servers which are killer but never gotten more as 7,4 MByte/second How do you Benchmark ? Two computers with 2 feet cross-over cable ? Maybe you will have zero errors, but in real it does not work. (create large file) [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ dd if=/dev/urandom of=public_html/large_file bs=1024 count=5 5+0 records in 5+0 records out (get large file) [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ wget www.lobefin.net/~steve/large_file [...] 22:46:09 (9.61 MB/s) - `large_file' saved [5120/5120] Of course, for reasonable sized files (where reasonable is 10MB), I get transfer speeds closer to 11MB/s. YMMV, but it is not a fault of the tcp protocol. Switched 10/100 connection here. Of course real internet travel adds some latency, but that's not the point - the NIC is not the bottleneck, bandwidth is in the OP's question. *ARGH*... and of course, there's *definately* no compression going on there, is there... Cheers. -- Brett Parker -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: hardware/optimizations for a download-webserver
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 10:39, Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Other people get 10MB/s. I've benchmarked some of my machines at 9MB/s. I do not belive it ! http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9704.1/0257.html See the above message from David S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted in 1997. At the time Dave used that as his standard .sig because it was really ground-breaking performance from Linux of 11MB/s TCP! When I did tests I never got 11MB/s on my machines, that is because my hardware was probably not as good, and because I used real-world applications such as FTP rather than TCP benchmarks. 100/8 == 12.5. The wire is capable of 12.5MB/s, having a protocol do 11.26 isn't so strange. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: hardware/optimizations for a download-webserver
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:05, Brett Parker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (create large file) [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ dd if=/dev/urandom of=public_html/large_file bs=1024 count=5 5+0 records in 5+0 records out (get large file) [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ wget www.lobefin.net/~steve/large_file [...] 22:46:09 (9.61 MB/s) - `large_file' saved [5120/5120] Of course, for reasonable sized files (where reasonable is 10MB), I get transfer speeds closer to 11MB/s. YMMV, but it is not a fault of the tcp protocol. Switched 10/100 connection here. Of course real internet travel adds some latency, but that's not the point - the NIC is not the bottleneck, bandwidth is in the OP's question. *ARGH*... and of course, there's *definately* no compression going on there, is there... If the files come from /dev/urandom then there won't be any significant compression. http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9704.1/0257.html Once again, see the above URL with Dave S. Miller's .sig on the topic. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Re: hardware/optimizations for a download-webserver
Am 2004-07-19 10:01:06, schrieb Russell Coker: On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 05:59, Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thinking of the expected 50KB/sec download rate i calculated a theoretical maximum of ~250 simultaneous downloads -- am i right ? With a 100 MBit NIC you can have a maximum of 7 MByte/sec What makes you think so? Other people get 10MB/s. I've benchmarked some of my machines at 9MB/s. I do not belive it ! Maybe with UDP but not TCP it is not possibel from the protocol. I have high performanc NIC's and some servers which are killer but never gotten more as 7,4 MByte/second How do you Benchmark ? Two computers with 2 feet cross-over cable ? Maybe you will have zero errors, but in real it does not work. Greetings Michelle -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi 0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: hardware/optimizations for a download-webserver
This one time, at band camp, Michelle Konzack said: Am 2004-07-19 10:01:06, schrieb Russell Coker: On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 05:59, Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thinking of the expected 50KB/sec download rate i calculated a theoretical maximum of ~250 simultaneous downloads -- am i right ? With a 100 MBit NIC you can have a maximum of 7 MByte/sec What makes you think so? Other people get 10MB/s. I've benchmarked some of my machines at 9MB/s. I do not belive it ! Maybe with UDP but not TCP it is not possibel from the protocol. I have high performanc NIC's and some servers which are killer but never gotten more as 7,4 MByte/second How do you Benchmark ? Two computers with 2 feet cross-over cable ? Maybe you will have zero errors, but in real it does not work. (create large file) [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ dd if=/dev/urandom of=public_html/large_file bs=1024 count=5 5+0 records in 5+0 records out (get large file) [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ wget www.lobefin.net/~steve/large_file [...] 22:46:09 (9.61 MB/s) - `large_file' saved [5120/5120] Of course, for reasonable sized files (where reasonable is 10MB), I get transfer speeds closer to 11MB/s. YMMV, but it is not a fault of the tcp protocol. Switched 10/100 connection here. Of course real internet travel adds some latency, but that's not the point - the NIC is not the bottleneck, bandwidth is in the OP's question. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - pgpVoO45EpZXz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: hardware/optimizations for a download-webserver
Thanks for your advice -- seems i have been too chicken-hearted. Summary: Don't bother with tuning the server and don't even think about setting up a cluster for something like this - definitely overkill. ;o) That's what i'll do ;-) However the 50/150 concurrent requests are a guess (best i can get for now) What do you think is the request-limit with a Pentium IV 2 GHz, 1GB RAM, 100Mbit, IDE-disk ? Thinking of the expected 50KB/sec download rate i calculated a theoretical maximum of ~250 simultaneous downloads -- am i right ? What is the practical throughput with a 100Mbit (non-realtek) NIC ? Thanks, Henrik -- Henrik Heil, zweipol Coy Heil GbR http://www.zweipol.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: hardware/optimizations for a download-webserver
Henrik Heil [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However the 50/150 concurrent requests are a guess (best i can get for now) What do you think is the request-limit with a Pentium IV 2 GHz, 1GB RAM, 100Mbit, IDE-disk ? Since all your files could be cached into the RAM, with a fast webserver like thttpd a few hundred What is the practical throughput with a 100Mbit (non-realtek) NIC ? I think this depends on your upstream and webserver more than on the NIC, I've seen Server with more than 40 MBit/s running fine. regards Johannes -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: hardware/optimizations for a download-webserver
Am 2004-07-18 13:37:03, schrieb Henrik Heil: However the 50/150 concurrent requests are a guess (best i can get for now) What do you think is the request-limit with a Pentium IV 2 GHz, 1GB RAM, 100Mbit, IDE-disk ? Thinking of the expected 50KB/sec download rate i calculated a theoretical maximum of ~250 simultaneous downloads -- am i right ? With a 100 MBit NIC you can have a maximum of 7 MByte/sec What is the practical throughput with a 100Mbit (non-realtek) NIC ? I use 3Com 3c905C-TX Thanks, Henrik Greetings Michelle -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi 0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: hardware/optimizations for a download-webserver
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 05:59, Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thinking of the expected 50KB/sec download rate i calculated a theoretical maximum of ~250 simultaneous downloads -- am i right ? With a 100 MBit NIC you can have a maximum of 7 MByte/sec What makes you think so? Other people get 10MB/s. I've benchmarked some of my machines at 9MB/s. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: hardware/optimizations for a download-webserver
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 08:53:21PM +0200, Henrik Heil wrote: Hello, please excuse my general questions. A customer asked me to setup a dedicated webserver that will offer ~30 files (each ~5MB) for download and is expected to receive a lot of traffic. Most of the users will have cable modems and their download speed should not drop below 50KB/sec. My questions are: What would be an adequate hardware to handle i.e. 50(average)/150(peak) concurrent downloads? What is the typical bottleneck in this setup? What optimizations should i apply to a standard woody or sarge installation? (anything kernelwise?) As long as we're not talking about 486-class machines, the processor is not going to be the bottleneck; the bandwidth is. Multiplying 150 peak users by 50kB/s gives 7.5MB/s, so your disks should be able to spit out at least 5MB/s. You should also make sure you have plenty of RAM (at least 512MB) to make sure you can cache as much of the files in RAM as possible. I have experiences with not so specialized servers (apache1.x/php4.x hosting on debian/woody/sarge) but never really hit any limits with these. I thought about: - tuning apache (oviously) -- raising Max/MinSpareServers, AllowOverride none, FollowSymLinks,... StartServers and SpareServers are probably going to be the most important options to tweak. You should experiment, but you probably should start up at least 20 servers, and keep the number of spare servers above five, but you'll have to experiment with it while in production to see what works best. You might also get some performance boost by turning off all the unnecessary modules like mod_php and mod_perl if you don't need them. - putting the files on a ramdisk or using mod_mmap_static (only ~600MB alltogether) You could try putting everything in a RAM disk, but if it's relatively static content and you have plenty of RAM the kernel will eventually cache everything in RAM anyways. - replacing apache with fnord (http://www.fefe.de/fnord/) or cthulhu (http://cthulhu.fnord.at/). Can anyone share experiences with these? This might help, but these might have their own configuration problems. If you're more familiar with Apache, you'll probably have an easier time tweaking it than something unfamiliar. - (as a last resort) using 2 loadbalancing servers with lvs (http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/). This might help, but it'll add another layer of complexity that could fail. I'd build one good machine than two less-good machines. -- -- Skylar Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -- http://www.cs.earlham.edu/~skylar/ pgpbLH02Y5Xrs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: hardware/optimizations for a download-webserver
Am Fr, den 16.07.2004 schrieb Henrik Heil um 20:53: Hello, please excuse my general questions. A customer asked me to setup a dedicated webserver that will offer ~30 files (each ~5MB) for download and is expected to receive a lot of traffic. Most of the users will have cable modems and their download speed should not drop below 50KB/sec. My questions are: What would be an adequate hardware to handle i.e. 50(average)/150(peak) concurrent downloads? What is the typical bottleneck in this setup? What optimizations should i apply to a standard woody or sarge installation? (anything kernelwise?) Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I really don't think you will max out any halfway decent server with this load... 30 x 5 MB will give you 150MB content. This should be easily cached in RAM, even without something like a ramdisk as linux does this by itself. Disk I/O should not be a problem. Furthermore the content seems to be static - no need for a fast CPU. 150 concurrent downloads will be no problem for Apache, even with the default settings. Only if you want to spawn more than 512 (?) child-processes you'll have to recompile and increase HARD_SERVER_LIMIT. Summary: Don't bother with tuning the server and don't even think about setting up a cluster for something like this - definitely overkill. ;o) I've a Debian box here which currently serves more than 160 req/second of dynamic content - no problem at all. The HTTP-cluster next to it is intended to handle WAY bigger loads... best regards, Markus -- Markus Oswald [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ Unix and Network Administration Graz, AUSTRIA \ High Availability / Cluster Mobile: +43 676 6485415\ System Consulting Fax:+43 316 428896 \ Web Development -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: hardware/optimizations for a download-webserver
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 05:42, Skylar Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As long as we're not talking about 486-class machines, the processor is not going to be the bottleneck; the bandwidth is. Multiplying 150 peak users by 50kB/s gives 7.5MB/s, so your disks should be able to spit out at least 5MB/s. You should also make sure you have plenty of RAM (at least 512MB) to make sure you can cache as much of the files in RAM as possible. As long as we are not talking about 486 class hardware then disks can handle 5MB/s. In 1998 I bought the cheapest available Thinkpad with a 3G IDE disk and it could do that speed for the first gigabyte of the hard disk. In 2000 I bought a newer Thinkpad with a 7.5G IDE disk which could do 6MB/s over the entire disk and 9MB/s for the first 3G. Also in 2000 I bought some cheap 46G IDE disks which could do 30MB/s for the first 20G and 18MB/s over the entire disk. If you buy one of the cheapest IDE disks available new (IE not stuff that's been on the shelf for a few years) and you connect it to an ATA-66 or ATA-100 bus on the cheapest ATX motherboard available then you should expect to be able to do bulk reads at speeds in excess of 40MB/s easily, and probably 50MB/s for some parts of the disk. I haven't had a chance to benchmark any of the 10,000rpm S-ATA disks, but I would hope that they could sustain bulk read speeds of 70MB/s or more. The next issue is seek performance. Getting large transfer rates when reading large amounts of data sequentially is easy. Getting large transfer rates while reading smaller amounts of data is more difficult. Hypothetically speaking if you wanted to read data in 1K blocks without any caching and it was not in order then you would probably find it difficult to sustain more than about 2MB/s on a RAID array. Fortunately modern hard disks have firmware that implements read-ahead (the last time I was purchasing hard disks the model with 8M of read-ahead buffer was about $2 more than one with 2M of read-ahead buffer). When you write files to disk the OS will try to keep them contiguous as much as possible, to the read-ahead in the drive may help if the OS doesn't do decent caching. However Linux does really aggressive caching of both meta-data and file data, and Apache should be doing reads with significantly larger block sizes than 1K. I expect that if you get a P3-800 class machine with a 20G IDE disk and RAM that's more than twice the size of the data that's to be served (easy when it's only 150M of data) then there will not be any performance problems. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: hardware/optimizations for a download-webserver
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 10:39, Nate Duehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 16, 2004, at 1:43 PM, Markus Oswald wrote: Summary: Don't bother with tuning the server and don't even think about setting up a cluster for something like this - definitely overkill. ;o) Unless there's a business requirement that it be available 24/7 with no maintenance downtime - that adds a level of complexity (and other questions that would need to be asked like do we need a second machine at another data center?) to the equation. That's a good point. But keep in mind that when done wrong clusters decrease reliability and increase down-time. I have never been involved in running a cluster where it worked as well as a single machine would have. Clusters need good cluster software (which does not exist for Solaris, there's probably something good for linux), they need a lot of testing (most people don't test properly), and they need careful planning. Installing a single machine and hoping for the best often gives better results. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: hardware/optimizations for a download-webserver
On Jul 16, 2004, at 8:28 PM, Russell Coker wrote: Installing a single machine and hoping for the best often gives better results. I agree in most cases. One possible better solution that is one step short of creating a cluster is installing a single machine, and making sure that rock-solid bare-metal backups happen regularly and that an identical offline machine is available on a few minutes notice if the site is manned 24/7, and available on a PRE-agreed-to timeframe (including downtime) at a dark site. The hard part about the above is people try to skip the step of buying the IDENTICAL hardware for the standby machine and then scramble to reconfigure or fight with other hardware issues when they swing to the machine manually. Other good ways to do this include a shared RAID'ed network filesystem on a central box and two front-end boxes that are load-balanced with a hardware load-balancer. That gets into the must be up 24/7 realm, or close to it. I worked on an environment that did this with a hardware NFS server (NetApp) and the front-ends could be up or down, it just didn't matter... as long as enough of them were up to handle the current load. But I have a feeling judging by the original poster's file sizes and traffic load, that his machine is probably not a required 24/7 uptime type system. It's fun to design systems like that, though. Quite a good mental exercise thinking of all the possible points of failure and communicating them to those who have to make the money/redundancy-level decisions. -- Nate Duehr, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: hardware/optimizations for a download-webserver
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 14:09, Nate Duehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Other good ways to do this include a shared RAID'ed network filesystem on a central box and two front-end boxes that are load-balanced with a hardware load-balancer. That gets into the must be up 24/7 realm, or close to it. I worked on an environment that did this with a hardware NFS server (NetApp) and the front-ends could be up or down, it just didn't matter... as long as enough of them were up to handle the current load. There are two ways of doing the storage is available to two machines. One is to have a shared SCSI bus and clustering software - but this is a major cause of clusters being less reliable than stand-along machines in my experience. The other way is using an NFS server. For an NFS server there are two main options, one is using a Linux NFS server and the other is a dedicated hardware box such as NetApp. The problem with using a Linux machine is that Linux as an NFS server is probably no more reliable than Linux as an Apache server (and may be less reliable). In addition you have network issues etc, so you may as well just have a single machine. Using a NetApp is expensive but gives some nice features in terms of backup etc (most of which can be done on Linux if you have the time and knowledge). A NetApp Filer should be more reliable than a Linux NFS server, but you still have issues with the Linux NFS client code. My best idea for a clustered web server was to have a master machine that content is uploaded to via a modified FTP server. The FTP server would launch rsync after the file transfer to update the affected tree. Cron jobs would periodically rsync the lot in case the FTP server didn't correctly launch the rsync job. That way there are machines that have no dependencies on each other. The idea was to use IPVS to direct traffic to all the servers. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Re: Hardware for massive DVD writing
On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 11:01:22PM +0100, Joaquin Ferrero wrote: Hi. A customer will need to burn 50Gb daily to DVDs (satellite imaginery products). All discs have different contents. We need a juke box with space to store virgin disk and burned disk... many discs... for automatic writing. I looked to: http://www.daxarchiving.com/ but i need more options... More options: Tapes. multiple DVD drives in one machine multiple SCSI DVD drives in one machine write to firewire IDE drive (this is truly becoming an easy portable solution - firewire or USB 2.0 drives are as cheap as some tape media!) Not know why daxarchiving.com is not suitable kind of leaves us at a disadvantage as to what requirements you have that are not met by that solution. HTH j -- === Build me an army worthy of... waterville? http://www.kingsofchaos.com/recruit.php?uniqid=4phk9i48 === -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Hardware for massive DVD writing
On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 11:01:22PM +0100, Joaquin Ferrero wrote: Hi. A customer will need to burn 50Gb daily to DVDs (satellite imaginery products). All discs have different contents. We need a juke box with space to store virgin disk and burned disk... many discs... for automatic writing. I looked to: http://www.daxarchiving.com/ but i need more options... More options: Tapes. multiple DVD drives in one machine multiple SCSI DVD drives in one machine write to firewire IDE drive (this is truly becoming an easy portable solution - firewire or USB 2.0 drives are as cheap as some tape media!) Not know why daxarchiving.com is not suitable kind of leaves us at a disadvantage as to what requirements you have that are not met by that solution. HTH j -- === Build me an army worthy of... waterville? http://www.kingsofchaos.com/recruit.php?uniqid=4phk9i48 ===
Re: Hardware IDE RAID-1 controller recommandation
Hello Nicolas, Am 13:47 2002-12-04 +0100 hat Nicolas Bougues geschrieben: 3ware website lists at least 4 dealers in Germany... In some minutes I will check it out... Why on earth would you like to do PIO ? It's awfully slow and ineffective, compared to DMA... Why use 30 Gigs if a 1 Gig does it... Because 30 Gb drives are cheaper and faster than 1 Gb ones... Hmmm, I have only apache-ssl with php4 installed and it is a server for administration where users can set there propreties... So, no speed required for the Harddisks... If what you require is only a small drive, and you don't have too much I/O on it (basically serving webpages is OK, SQL is not), did you consider using CF cards ? I have no experience with compactflasch and my local dealers can not give me informations about it... Suggestins ? Hardware requirements ? I have completly 5 small Servers like this one... You can get 256 Mb or more for about 100 Euros. Once you get a cheap CF-to-IDE adapter (something like 20 Euros), you plug them as IDE Oh yes !!! I have seen it on eBay.de drives. Very reliable (almost no need for mirroring), almost zero power consumption, no noise, no heat. Thats a realy great idea... The only drawbacks are : - capacity (but as you said, for lots of tasks, that's not a problem) - PIO only. Thus quite slow, about 1 MByte/sec. Thats dfast for the servers ;-)) Thanks Michelle -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Hardware IDE RAID-1 controller recommandation
Hello Nicolas, Am 13:47 2002-12-04 +0100 hat Nicolas Bougues geschrieben: 3ware website lists at least 4 dealers in Germany... In some minutes I will check it out... Why on earth would you like to do PIO ? It's awfully slow and ineffective, compared to DMA... Why use 30 Gigs if a 1 Gig does it... Because 30 Gb drives are cheaper and faster than 1 Gb ones... Hmmm, I have only apache-ssl with php4 installed and it is a server for administration where users can set there propreties... So, no speed required for the Harddisks... If what you require is only a small drive, and you don't have too much I/O on it (basically serving webpages is OK, SQL is not), did you consider using CF cards ? I have no experience with compactflasch and my local dealers can not give me informations about it... Suggestins ? Hardware requirements ? I have completly 5 small Servers like this one... You can get 256 Mb or more for about 100 Euros. Once you get a cheap CF-to-IDE adapter (something like 20 Euros), you plug them as IDE Oh yes !!! I have seen it on eBay.de drives. Very reliable (almost no need for mirroring), almost zero power consumption, no noise, no heat. Thats a realy great idea... The only drawbacks are : - capacity (but as you said, for lots of tasks, that's not a problem) - PIO only. Thus quite slow, about 1 MByte/sec. Thats dfast for the servers ;-)) Thanks Michelle -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Hardware IDE RAID-1 controller recommandation
also sprach [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.12.05.1114 +0100]: Have fun with it, if a harddisk fails ( on most controllers ) your system will hang and it doesn't boot anymore. So good luck with your IBM controllers. If i would buy a controller it would be an Adaptec due to my good experiences with these controllers. I would never buy an Adaptec again, nor would I propose software RAID. If you need a reliable RAID 1, only Promise controllers did what I wanted at the speed I wanted and for a price that was reasonable. With Adaptec, you pay $100 just for the name. -- .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system NOTE: The public PGP keyservers are broken! Get my key here: http://people.debian.org/~madduck/gpg/330c4a75.asc msg07523/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Hardware IDE RAID-1 controller recommandation
On Wed, 04 Dec 2002 11:31:00 +, Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A two chanel RAID-1 Controller for two Harddisks for 480 US$ ;-)) They come with a price. If you're looking for something cheaper, I'd say goodbye to my requirements and get some el cheapo promise cards or do software RAID. For the quarter price I get a used SCSI-RAID-Controller at 'eBay' and for the rest I can buy two NEW IBM IC35L018... Then please do so. Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber |Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Karlsruhe, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom | Fon: *49 721 966 32 15 Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG Rightful Heir | Fax: *49 721 966 31 29 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Hardware IDE RAID-1 controller recommandation
On Wed, 04 Dec 2002 11:31:00 +, Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A two chanel RAID-1 Controller for two Harddisks for 480 US$ ;-)) They come with a price. If you're looking for something cheaper, I'd say goodbye to my requirements and get some el cheapo promise cards or do software RAID. For the quarter price I get a used SCSI-RAID-Controller at 'eBay' and for the rest I can buy two NEW IBM IC35L018... Then please do so. Greetings Marc Have fun with it, if a harddisk fails ( on most controllers ) your system will hang and it doesn't boot anymore. So good luck with your IBM controllers. If i would buy a controller it would be an Adaptec due to my good experiences with these controllers. Good luck :) Robbert Helling. p.s. Sorry for the shitty ad __ Snel en makkelijk e-mailen met Wanadoo Webmail! http://www.wanadoo.nl/webmail -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Hardware IDE RAID-1 controller recommandation
Hello Steven, Am 10:09 2002-12-03 +1300 hat Jones, Steven geschrieben: lol, all over the place does not incl NZ. Choice is very limited here in NZ, Id like a 3ware but its try and get someone in the US to sell send it to me at a sane price (international shipping hence no warrantee) or get it from OZ at a horrendious price with again no warrantee. A 4 port 3ware unit is looking $1400AU+ like $700US+then i have to pay Customs off so another 12.5%, way too much. I have heard about stuff like this... A two chanel RAID-1 Controller for two Harddisks for 480 US$ ;-)) For the quarter price I get a used SCSI-RAID-Controller at 'eBay' and for the rest I can buy two NEW IBM IC35L018... Chiao Michelle -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Hardware IDE RAID-1 controller recommandation
Hello Nicolas, Am 08:53 2002-12-03 +0100 hat Nicolas Bougues geschrieben: On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 02:22:43AM +, Michelle Konzack wrote: RAID-1 is mirroring. You plan 4- or 8-way mirroring ?? what do you mean with '4- or 8-way' ? I have always two disks parallel (one original and one mirror) Had problems with Software RAID, because the mirror is not bootable and after a shutdown thy Server was not starting. I think, I can use only Hardware RAID. 3ware. Definetly. Although I'm not sure that it supports RAID-1 arrays I have not found a reseller for 3ware in my region... Possible. Depends on the enclosures you use for you drives. Simple IDE racks are OK, as long as they have a switch to turn off power before hotswap. unfortunately no. Is there a RAID-1 Controller which support PIO Mode 4 Drives ? Why on earth would you like to do PIO ? It's awfully slow and ineffective, compared to DMA... Why use 30 Gigs if a 1 Gig does it... It is only one of my administration Servers and the installation is around 95 MByte... ;-)) (apache-ssl, php4, open-ssh) Thanks Michelle -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Hardware IDE RAID-1 controller recommandation
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 11:25:55AM +, Michelle Konzack wrote: On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 02:22:43AM +, Michelle Konzack wrote: RAID-1 is mirroring. You plan 4- or 8-way mirroring ?? what do you mean with '4- or 8-way' ? You said in your first post that you need Hardware RAID-1 Controllers for two, four and eight Harddisks. And I was wondering why you would need more than 2 hard disks for mirroring. It can be either : - n-way mirroring : you want to have n identical drives, thus you can live with up to (n-1) failed drives. - some kind of RAID 10, as Russel pointed out, where you would do in fact RAID 1 over multiple RAID 0 arrays. I have always two disks parallel (one original and one mirror) OK, it's clearer now. Had problems with Software RAID, because the mirror is not bootable and after a shutdown thy Server was not starting. I think, I can use only Hardware RAID. Obvisously better. 3ware. Definetly. Although I'm not sure that it supports RAID-1 arrays I have not found a reseller for 3ware in my region... 3ware website lists at least 4 dealers in Germany... Is there a RAID-1 Controller which support PIO Mode 4 Drives ? Why on earth would you like to do PIO ? It's awfully slow and ineffective, compared to DMA... Why use 30 Gigs if a 1 Gig does it... Because 30 Gb drives are cheaper and faster than 1 Gb ones... It is only one of my administration Servers and the installation is around 95 MByte... ;-)) If what you require is only a small drive, and you don't have too much I/O on it (basically serving webpages is OK, SQL is not), did you consider using CF cards ? You can get 256 Mb or more for about 100 Euros. Once you get a cheap CF-to-IDE adapter (something like 20 Euros), you plug them as IDE drives. Very reliable (almost no need for mirroring), almost zero power consumption, no noise, no heat. We use them in several appliance like servers at our customers. The only drawbacks are : - capacity (but as you said, for lots of tasks, that's not a problem) - PIO only. Thus quite slow, about 1 MByte/sec. HTH, -- Nicolas Bougues Axialys Interactive -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Hardware IDE RAID-1 controller recommandation
On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 02:22:43 +, Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: curently I am installing some new Servers and I need Hardware RAID-1 Controllers for two, four and eight Harddisks. 3ware, available all over the place. Ic possibel with HOTSWAP. Infortrend, available from starline.de. Be sure to sit down before looking at the prices. Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber |Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Karlsruhe, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom | Fon: *49 721 966 32 15 Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG Rightful Heir | Fax: *49 721 966 31 29 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Hardware IDE RAID-1 controller recommandation
lol, all over the place does not incl NZ. Choice is very limited here in NZ, Id like a 3ware but its try and get someone in the US to sell send it to me at a sane price (international shipping hence no warrantee) or get it from OZ at a horrendious price with again no warrantee. A 4 port 3ware unit is looking $1400AU+ like $700US+then i have to pay Customs off so another 12.5%, way too much. regards Thing -Original Message- From: Marc Haber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, 3 December 2002 9:19 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Hardware IDE RAID-1 controller recommandation On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 02:22:43 +, Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: curently I am installing some new Servers and I need Hardware RAID-1 Controllers for two, four and eight Harddisks. 3ware, available all over the place. Ic possibel with HOTSWAP. Infortrend, available from starline.de. Be sure to sit down before looking at the prices. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Hardware IDE RAID-1 controller recommandation
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 02:22:43AM +, Michelle Konzack wrote: Hello, curently I am installing some new Servers and I need Hardware RAID-1 Controllers for two, four and eight Harddisks. RAID-1 is mirroring. You plan 4- or 8-way mirroring ?? Or you'd like to have multiple drive arrays ? Can anyone recomand some ? 3ware. Definetly. Although I'm not sure that it supports RAID-1 arrays with more than two drives (online). But if you go the RAID-5 way, it's ok. Ic possibel with HOTSWAP. Possible. Depends on the enclosures you use for you drives. Simple IDE racks are OK, as long as they have a switch to turn off power before hotswap. Is there a RAID-1 Controller which support PIO Mode 4 Drives ? Why on earth would you like to do PIO ? It's awfully slow and ineffective, compared to DMA... -- Nicolas Bougues Axialys Interactive -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: hardware raid
The 3ware cards work really well. www.3ware.com and check out the Escalade 6200/6400? or 7xxx series if you have 64-bit PCI slots. - jsw -Original Message- From: Andrew Kaplan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 5:20 PM To: Debian-Isp Subject: hardware raid I'm looking for a good hardware raid 1 (mirroring) solution for Debian. Will the promise cards work with Debian or is there a better solution thanks. Andrew P. Kaplan Network Administrator CyberShore, Inc. http://www.cshore.com I couldn't give him advice in business and he couldn't give me advice in technology. --Linus Torvalds, about why he wouldn't be interested in meeting Bill Gates. -Original Message- From: Craigsc [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 4:17 AM To: Debian-Isp Subject: VIM H -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.286 / Virus Database: 152 - Release Date: 10/9/01 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.286 / Virus Database: 152 - Release Date: 10/9/01 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: hardware raid
If you are looking for Ultra 160 SCSI, the Mylex AcceleRAID 170 may be something that you want. I recent purchased about 30 of these cards for a RAID 1 solution for some rack servers. They work pretty good. RAID0, RAID1, Spanning (JBOD), RAID5. You can backup and restore the controller configuration to a floppy disk, the BIOS interface is fairly nice and simple. Rebuilding takes awhile, but no big deal. They also make an AcceleRAID 170LP, a low-profile PCI card. Pretty neat. AMI recently sold all of their RAID card business to LSI Logic, this making getting some of the AMI cards a bit difficult right now. Otherwise, I would also recommend the AMI Express 500. If you are looking for IDE, I have no comment there. # Jesse Molina lanner, Snow # Network Engineer Maximum Charisma Studios Inc. # [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.303.432.0286 # end of sig -Original Message- From: Andrew Kaplan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 3:20 PM To: Debian-Isp Subject: hardware raid I'm looking for a good hardware raid 1 (mirroring) solution for Debian. Will the promise cards work with Debian or is there a better solution thanks. Andrew P. Kaplan Network Administrator CyberShore, Inc. http://www.cshore.com I couldn't give him advice in business and he couldn't give me advice in technology. --Linus Torvalds, about why he wouldn't be interested in meeting Bill Gates. -Original Message- From: Craigsc [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 4:17 AM To: Debian-Isp Subject: VIM H -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.286 / Virus Database: 152 - Release Date: 10/9/01 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.286 / Virus Database: 152 - Release Date: 10/9/01 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: hardware recommendation
Allen, I don't know if you're aware but your mailer seems to have a Y2K problem. From your mail header: Date: Tue, 17 Jul 101 10:04:43 -0400 (EDT) Gotta' be perl! :-) Pete -- http://www.elbnet.com ELB Internet Services, Inc. Web Design, Computer Consulting, Internet Hosting -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Hardware RAID
I know its been some time since this post, im primarily responding for the archives, maybe someone will find the info usefulll.. i was looking for the exact same thing, an inexpensive hardware RAID controller. (something in the hundreds of dollars as apposed to the thousands). What i wfound was the AAA-13x card, its an adaptec hardware raid. and i looked on the hardware compatability list and it was listed etc. however... I got the card working, booted up off its cmos disk to flash the cards rom with the settings, and set it up as a RAID-1 ( i had 2 26 gig drives and just wanted mirroring). and the card was detected and all i had no problems as far as that was concerned and I even saw as i was installing debian both drives were active when it was installing to just the first drive "great" i thought. but the more i read the manual and stuff the more it seemed like in order to restore the secondary drive to use as a primary (if the original primary failed) was to use their proprietary windows software to rebuild the array. the disk they provide to setup the array (that you boot off) didnt have any rebuild features. so when it came down to it... i realized i could not use the hardware raid without the software program utilities. the cost was about the price of two adaptec 2940's and in the end. i ended up removing the array completely, and using the controller as just a scsi controller and wasting the RAID features. so now i have two drives. and i dd'd the contents of th first to the second.. and run a script that diffs the specified files that i want to back up and overwrites the newer file onto the second hard drive whenever its been updated. so if there is a problem with the first drive, i can just put the secondary in the primary slot and boot right up on it no problem. kind of a hacked raid-1 i guess. it works good and i dont have to worry about rebuilding arrays or whatever. hope this helps someone about to make the same mistake, or maybe someone has had bette rluck with the same card, if so please tell me all about it! On Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 08:15:13AM -0600, elyograg wrote: I've been looking through kernel readme files, and trying to find a hardware RAID solution that will run under Debian. It seems that all of the RAID hardware that is supported in the 2.2 kernel is either very very expensive, or impossible to find. The controllers that are affordable, aren't supported. I did briefly look at the 2.3 kernel, but there didn't seem to be any additional support. We're planning to go with 5-7 U2W drives in a level 5 array, probably sticking with 7200 RPM. The 160Mb standard on 10,000 RPM drives would be very nice, but the price increases are staggering. We'll try to find the current pricing sweet spot and purchase drives at that capacity. We don't need the full redundant power, hot swappable setup - our concern is speed and reliability. If we have to take it down because of a hardware failure, we're OK with that. :) Does anyone have any recommendations for a hardware RAID controller with a good combination of price and Linux support, and at least one supplier who carries it? I know I can do software RAID, and this idea hasn't been completely discounted, but I'm very interested in the potential for just letting the hardware take care of it. The only case I know of with software RAID (level 1) was difficult to work with, as it was extremely slow to fsck/rebuild if there were any problems. Anyone have any other horror or success stories with either hardware or software RAID to share? If we go the software route, would there be any issue with simply getting something like the Adaptec 2940U2W? Any other solid recommendations, and reasoning to support the choice? Thanks, Shawn -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- - Nick Jennings Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://nick.namodn.com - -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Hardware RAID
I know its been some time since this post, im primarily responding for the archives, maybe someone will find the info usefulll.. i was looking for the exact same thing, an inexpensive hardware RAID controller. (something in the hundreds of dollars as apposed to the thousands). What i wfound was the AAA-13x card, its an adaptec hardware raid. and i looked on the hardware compatability list and it was listed etc. however... I got the card working, booted up off its cmos disk to flash the cards rom with the settings, and set it up as a RAID-1 ( i had 2 26 gig drives and just wanted mirroring). and the card was detected and all i had no problems as far as that was concerned and I even saw as i was installing debian both drives were active when it was installing to just the first drive great i thought. but the more i read the manual and stuff the more it seemed like in order to restore the secondary drive to use as a primary (if the original primary failed) was to use their proprietary windows software to rebuild the array. the disk they provide to setup the array (that you boot off) didnt have any rebuild features. so when it came down to it... i realized i could not use the hardware raid without the software program utilities. the cost was about the price of two adaptec 2940's and in the end. i ended up removing the array completely, and using the controller as just a scsi controller and wasting the RAID features. so now i have two drives. and i dd'd the contents of th first to the second.. and run a script that diffs the specified files that i want to back up and overwrites the newer file onto the second hard drive whenever its been updated. so if there is a problem with the first drive, i can just put the secondary in the primary slot and boot right up on it no problem. kind of a hacked raid-1 i guess. it works good and i dont have to worry about rebuilding arrays or whatever. hope this helps someone about to make the same mistake, or maybe someone has had bette rluck with the same card, if so please tell me all about it! On Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 08:15:13AM -0600, elyograg wrote: I've been looking through kernel readme files, and trying to find a hardware RAID solution that will run under Debian. It seems that all of the RAID hardware that is supported in the 2.2 kernel is either very very expensive, or impossible to find. The controllers that are affordable, aren't supported. I did briefly look at the 2.3 kernel, but there didn't seem to be any additional support. We're planning to go with 5-7 U2W drives in a level 5 array, probably sticking with 7200 RPM. The 160Mb standard on 10,000 RPM drives would be very nice, but the price increases are staggering. We'll try to find the current pricing sweet spot and purchase drives at that capacity. We don't need the full redundant power, hot swappable setup - our concern is speed and reliability. If we have to take it down because of a hardware failure, we're OK with that. :) Does anyone have any recommendations for a hardware RAID controller with a good combination of price and Linux support, and at least one supplier who carries it? I know I can do software RAID, and this idea hasn't been completely discounted, but I'm very interested in the potential for just letting the hardware take care of it. The only case I know of with software RAID (level 1) was difficult to work with, as it was extremely slow to fsck/rebuild if there were any problems. Anyone have any other horror or success stories with either hardware or software RAID to share? If we go the software route, would there be any issue with simply getting something like the Adaptec 2940U2W? Any other solid recommendations, and reasoning to support the choice? Thanks, Shawn -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- - Nick Jennings Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://nick.namodn.com -
Re: Hardware RAID
I must have missed this the first time around, but we just went with hardware raid solution as well. We installed the ICP-Vortex card, we paid about $590 or so for it from www.thelinuxstore.com with 32MB of RAM. It takes standard PC100 SDRAM. The card comes with linux drivers, and linux software so you can actually setup the RAID settings REMOTELY! That's right, you can do it from a telnet/ssh window if you want to, anything that supports ncurses... www.icp-vortex.com is the address, so far, we havent had any issues with it, and it works as advertised. On Mon, 4 Sep 2000, Nick Jennings wrote: | | I know its been some time since this post, im primarily responding | for the archives, maybe someone will find the info usefulll.. | | i was looking for the exact same thing, an inexpensive hardware RAID | controller. (something in the hundreds of dollars as apposed to the | thousands). What i wfound was the AAA-13x card, its an adaptec hardware | raid. and i looked on the hardware compatability list and it was listed | etc. however... | | I got the card working, booted up off its cmos disk to flash | the cards rom with the settings, and set it up as a RAID-1 ( i had | 2 26 gig drives and just wanted mirroring). and the card was detected | and all i had no problems as far as that was concerned and I even | saw as i was installing debian both drives were active when it was | installing to just the first drive great i thought. but the more i | read the manual and stuff the more it seemed like in order to restore | the secondary drive to use as a primary (if the original primary failed) was | to use their proprietary windows software to rebuild the array. the disk | they provide to setup the array (that you boot off) didnt have any | rebuild features. so when it came down to it... i realized i could not | use the hardware raid without the software program utilities. | | the cost was about the price of two adaptec 2940's and in the end. i ended | up removing the array completely, and using the controller as just a | scsi controller and wasting the RAID features. so now i have two drives. | and i dd'd the contents of th first to the second.. and run a script | that diffs the specified files that i want to back up and overwrites | the newer file onto the second hard drive whenever its been updated. | so if there is a problem with the first drive, i can just put the | secondary in the primary slot and boot right up on it no problem. | kind of a hacked raid-1 i guess. it works good and i dont have to worry | about rebuilding arrays or whatever. | | hope this helps someone about to make the same mistake, or maybe someone | has had bette rluck with the same card, if so please tell me all about it! | | | On Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 08:15:13AM -0600, elyograg wrote: | I've been looking through kernel readme files, and trying to find a | hardware RAID solution that will run under Debian. It seems that all of | the RAID hardware that is supported in the 2.2 kernel is either very very | expensive, or impossible to find. The controllers that are affordable, | aren't supported. I did briefly look at the 2.3 kernel, but there didn't | seem to be any additional support. | | We're planning to go with 5-7 U2W drives in a level 5 array, probably | sticking with 7200 RPM. The 160Mb standard on 10,000 RPM drives would be | very nice, but the price increases are staggering. We'll try to find the | current pricing sweet spot and purchase drives at that capacity. We don't | need the full redundant power, hot swappable setup - our concern is speed | and reliability. If we have to take it down because of a hardware failure, | we're OK with that. :) | | Does anyone have any recommendations for a hardware RAID controller with a | good combination of price and Linux support, and at least one supplier who | carries it? | | I know I can do software RAID, and this idea hasn't been completely | discounted, but I'm very interested in the potential for just letting the | hardware take care of it. The only case I know of with software RAID | (level 1) was difficult to work with, as it was extremely slow to | fsck/rebuild if there were any problems. Anyone have any other horror or | success stories with either hardware or software RAID to share? | | If we go the software route, would there be any issue with simply getting | something like the Adaptec 2940U2W? Any other solid recommendations, and | reasoning to support the choice? | | Thanks, | Shawn | | | -- | To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] | with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | | | -- | - Nick Jennings | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Web : http://nick.namodn.com | - | | | -- | To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] | with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | -- ___ _ __ _
Re: hardware scsi raid recommendation
Hi, I run an HP NetServer with Debian 2.2, 2 SCSI drives attached to a HP NetRAID-S1i (RAID 1 mode) with very good result, the HP NetRAID card use an AMI MegaRAID chipset, and this chipset is supported by the kernel "megaraid.c" . On Tue, 25 Jul 100, Allen Ahoffman wrote: I'm trying to build a system with hardware SCSI raid, any suggestions welcome. Its a simple system with 2 drives. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: hardware scsi raid recommendation
I absolutely love the Mylex controllers. The AccelleRAID 150 has a 33MHz i960 and is available in one channel w/ 4meg cache for about $400. I'd suggest that for a small 2-drive RAID. Linux support is native, DAC960 driver. On Tue, Jul 25, 2000 at 09:49:50AM -0400, Allen Ahoffman wrote: I'm trying to build a system with hardware SCSI raid, any suggestions welcome. Its a simple system with 2 drives. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: hardware scsi raid recommendation
Hi, I run an HP NetServer with Debian 2.2, 2 SCSI drives attached to a HP NetRAID-S1i (RAID 1 mode) with very good result, the HP NetRAID card use an AMI MegaRAID chipset, and this chipset is supported by the kernel megaraid.c . On Tue, 25 Jul 100, Allen Ahoffman wrote: I'm trying to build a system with hardware SCSI raid, any suggestions welcome. Its a simple system with 2 drives. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: hardware scsi raid recommendation
I absolutely love the Mylex controllers. The AccelleRAID 150 has a 33MHz i960 and is available in one channel w/ 4meg cache for about $400. I'd suggest that for a small 2-drive RAID. Linux support is native, DAC960 driver. On Tue, Jul 25, 2000 at 09:49:50AM -0400, Allen Ahoffman wrote: I'm trying to build a system with hardware SCSI raid, any suggestions welcome. Its a simple system with 2 drives. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Hardware RAID
On Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 08:15:13AM -0600, elyograg wrote: Does anyone have any recommendations for a hardware RAID controller with a good combination of price and Linux support, and at least one supplier who carries it? http://www.tdl.com/~netex - We got our DAC1164 from there, works under the DAC960 driver (Mylex). There are also other options. I would recommend the DAC1164 if you can afford it (233MHz i960), or the DAC960. -- Kevin Blackham 801-539-0852 XMission Internet877-XMISSION [EMAIL PROTECTED]877-964-7746 http://www.xmission.com/help
