Re: Some though and more detail
On 2006/07/06 09:50, Joachim Schipper wrote: > > We are now in the days of being able to make a complete OS install > > onto a flashcard which costs less than the cheapest hard drive. > > Is this still the case if you include the controller? I don't know, just > asking... DiskOnModule are cheap if you buy them from the right place, and they plug straight into IDE. CF seems cheaper for bigger modules (and adapters aren't _that_ expensive - pretty simple, just a PCB and couple of connectors usually). > Well, given a good RAID card or software RAID implementation, a clueful > admin, and decent disks, it should be pretty good. Or do you have other > experiences? I am quite happy with RAIDframe... Add (at least): decent cables, taking care when swapping failed disks, good power supplies...
Re: Some though and more detail
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 12:32:13AM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2006/07/06 00:13, Joachim Schipper wrote: > > The OS shouldn't use the disk much, but adding CF will make your server > > more complex, more expensive, and slower. I really don't see the point. > > OTOH, if files on the HD are only accessed infrequently and the disk > is spun down the rest of the time, this could reduce power use, heat > and noise, and isn't any more complicated than, say, having two hard > drives. > > We are now in the days of being able to make a complete OS install > onto a flashcard which costs less than the cheapest hard drive. Is this still the case if you include the controller? I don't know, just asking... Your point about noise is correct, though. > > Or, if possible, a RAID array (which is fast, not too expensive > > if you actually use the I, and more reliable than any single disk). > > "more reliable than any single disk" - not always. Well, given a good RAID card or software RAID implementation, a clueful admin, and decent disks, it should be pretty good. Or do you have other experiences? I am quite happy with RAIDframe... Joachim
Re: Some though and more detail
On 2006/07/06 00:13, Joachim Schipper wrote: > The OS shouldn't use the disk much, but adding CF will make your server > more complex, more expensive, and slower. I really don't see the point. OTOH, if files on the HD are only accessed infrequently and the disk is spun down the rest of the time, this could reduce power use, heat and noise, and isn't any more complicated than, say, having two hard drives. We are now in the days of being able to make a complete OS install onto a flashcard which costs less than the cheapest hard drive. > Or, if possible, a RAID array (which is fast, not too expensive > if you actually use the I, and more reliable than any single disk). "more reliable than any single disk" - not always.
Re: Some though and more detail
On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 10:23:57AM -0700, Ginja_Ninja wrote: > Joachim Schipper wrote: > > > > Why the CF? It's slow, and relatively expensive. It's good for embedded > > systems, but if you already have a huge disk, use that. > > > > h I can see your point. Its only a thought at the moment but the reason > i am looking in this direction is: > If the OS is seperated from the files and i decide to upgrade the storage > HDD, i dont have to format and reinstall/setup the OS and the relevant > applications. > > CF is slow, i agree with you, but how much crunching will the OS do ? > I suppose i wont be able to have a swap file on the CF as it will destroy it > quickly. Will have to pack it full of RAM. If you want to put a different HD in, you'll have to copy the data anyway; copying the OS as well is not exactly difficult (the only thing you could reasonably do wrong is forget to re-run installboot(8)). (Note: *NIX is not Windows, just tarring and untarring results in a system that still works fine, if a bootloader is added. This is as true for OpenBSD as it is for, say, Linux - barring a kernel optimized for your specific hardware, of course, which is not recommended for OpenBSD and not usual in the Linux world.) The OS shouldn't use the disk much, but adding CF will make your server more complex, more expensive, and slower. I really don't see the point. RAM is in general a very good idea for a server; this is less true for a fileserver, though - good disks matter. If you have the money, consider a good disk and a good controller. Or, if possible, a RAID array (which is fast, not too expensive if you actually use the I, and more reliable than any single disk). Joachim
Re: Some though and more detail
Joachim Schipper wrote: > > Why the CF? It's slow, and relatively expensive. It's good for embedded > systems, but if you already have a huge disk, use that. > h I can see your point. Its only a thought at the moment but the reason i am looking in this direction is: If the OS is seperated from the files and i decide to upgrade the storage HDD, i dont have to format and reinstall/setup the OS and the relevant applications. CF is slow, i agree with you, but how much crunching will the OS do ? I suppose i wont be able to have a swap file on the CF as it will destroy it quickly. Will have to pack it full of RAM. Thoughts welcome. Regards G_N -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/File-Server-Advice-Required-tf1891201.html#a5186050 Sent from the openbsd user - misc forum at Nabble.com.
Re: Some though and more detail
On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 08:26:45AM -0700, Ginja_Ninja wrote: > Firstly thanks for everyone thought on this. > > As i say, i am in new waters with this, so getting my head around it all > will take to reading and re-reading. > > For reference though, i intend to run a nano-itx system with a SATA drive. > I have taken serious consideration to you suggestion of a multidisk setup, > but i would like the smallest unit possible. It also means that noise and > power usage wont be an issue. I know they dont draw much but i intend on > living in a house that runs purely on solar panels in the near future. > > I also intend to run the OS off a Compact Flash Card / Secure Digital car or > something similar, with the "/" directory on a 500 / 750 HDD. Why the CF? It's slow, and relatively expensive. It's good for embedded systems, but if you already have a huge disk, use that. > Then i suppose that i setup up my users from there ie "/home/user1" and > "/home/user2" then i suppose its the job of the laptop OS to look at the > file server for its files. > > Hmmm...there is still lots to think about, but i will keep this one brief > for now and will reply again soon. > > The laptop itself (i am hopeing) will run Gentoo linux. The computer will > run a flavour of Windows (sorry but its not mine, i have to, lol) Also consider a backup strategy somewhere. I use tape, which works well, but tape drives are expensive. Using multiple disks also works, to some extent, but you didn't want to do that. Joachim
Re: Some though and more detail
Firstly thanks for everyone thought on this. As i say, i am in new waters with this, so getting my head around it all will take to reading and re-reading. For reference though, i intend to run a nano-itx system with a SATA drive. I have taken serious consideration to you suggestion of a multidisk setup, but i would like the smallest unit possible. It also means that noise and power usage wont be an issue. I know they dont draw much but i intend on living in a house that runs purely on solar panels in the near future. I also intend to run the OS off a Compact Flash Card / Secure Digital car or something similar, with the "/" directory on a 500 / 750 HDD. Then i suppose that i setup up my users from there ie "/home/user1" and "/home/user2" then i suppose its the job of the laptop OS to look at the file server for its files. Hmmm...there is still lots to think about, but i will keep this one brief for now and will reply again soon. The laptop itself (i am hopeing) will run Gentoo linux. The computer will run a flavour of Windows (sorry but its not mine, i have to, lol) Thanks again, and take care. G_N -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/File-Server-Advice-Required-tf1891201.html#a5183828 Sent from the openbsd user - misc forum at Nabble.com.
