RE: [NTSysADM] raid 5? in 2016

2016-09-18 Thread Hank Arnold 
I would seriously consider 2 Raid 10 arrays, giving you 2 fast, secure 1 TB 
drives?


Regards, 
Hank Arnold 
“THERE IS NO CLOUD – It’s just someone else’s computer!”



My Blog: http://blogs.msmvps.com/hankshelp/
Twitter: @Hank_PCDoc
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hank.arnold.96

-Original Message-
From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On 
Behalf Of Kurt Buff
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 11:04 AM
To: ntsysadm <ntsysadm@lists.myitforum.com>
Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] raid 5? in 2016

8 x 500gb = 4tb, raw.
RAID5 = 3.5 raw
RAID6 or RAID5 + hot spare = 3tb raw

Space dwindles quickly when reserving disks for failover/availability.

How many VMs? What apps running on them?

It's certainly going to be a screaming machine, regardless - depending on type 
and how many procs are in it, though I'd consider upping the RAM to 128.

Does it have a 10gb NIC? If the infrastructure supports it, I'd strongly 
consider that.

Kurt

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 6:10 AM, J- P <jnat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> So I inherited this server , (sitting on site since February) low and 
> behold when I fire it up it turns out that whoever set it up used all 
> 8 discs in a raid 5 (granted they are only 500gb enterprise ssd's ) 
> but still raid 5? and no hot spare?
>
>
> I'm trying to figure what the purpose of this server is/was, but aside 
> from a losing some space wouldn't a  raid 6 and hot spare make MUCH more 
> sense?
>
>
> I'd like to move some of their VMs to it, as it is a brand spanking 
> new r730 with 96gb of ram
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [NTSysADM] raid 5? in 2016

2016-09-16 Thread Andrew S. Baker 
As the drives in question are SSDs, they will rebuild faster than regular SATA
or SAS drives.
Still, RAID6 is better than RAID5 for timely recovery due to the above…
Regards,







ASB  
http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker

Providing Expert Technology
Consulting Services for the SMB market…


GPG:860D 40A1 4DA5 3AE1 B052 8F9F 07A1 F9D6 A549 8842













On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 1:26 PM, Mark Gottschalk mgo...@2roads.com
wrote:
http://www.zdnet.com/article/why-raid-5-stops-working-in-2009/

It claims a 50% chance of
rebuild failure in a RAID5 array with 7 1-TB drives.  Your disks are
only 500GB, but there are 8 of them.  Someone else will have to do
the math on that.  The consensus starting several years ago (the article
is from 2009) is that RAID 5 is dead due to the very high chance (approaching
100% with large drives) of a URE during rebuild, thus rendering a RAID
5 array a false sense of security and not actually robust/redundant at
all.

Another article about OBR10
(one big raid 10) being the current standard for server storage:
https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/262196-one-big-raid-10-the-new-standard-in-server-storage

There are always exceptions,
and yours could justifiably be one of them.  Don't know and don't
want to debate it (plenty of that in the SpiceWorks comments). Just sending
some info I was previously aware of.

-- Mark




From:J- P 
To:NT 
Date:09/16/2016 06:18 AM
Subject:[NTSysADM] raid
5? in 2016
Sent by:






So I inherited this server , (sitting on
site since February) low and behold when I fire it up it turns out that
whoever set it up used all 8 discs in a raid 5 (granted they are only 500gb
enterprise ssd's ) but still raid 5? and no hot spare?

I'm trying to figure what the purpose of
this server is/was, but aside from a losing some space wouldn't a  raid
6 and hot spare make MUCH more sense?

I'd like to move some of their VMs to it,
as it is a brand spanking new r730 with 96gb of ram

Re: [NTSysADM] raid 5? in 2016

2016-09-16 Thread Mark Gottschalk 
http://www.zdnet.com/article/why-raid-5-stops-working-in-2009/

It claims a 50% chance of rebuild failure in a RAID5 array with 7 1-TB 
drives.  Your disks are only 500GB, but there are 8 of them.  Someone else 
will have to do the math on that.  The consensus starting several years 
ago (the article is from 2009) is that RAID 5 is dead due to the very high 
chance (approaching 100% with large drives) of a URE during rebuild, thus 
rendering a RAID 5 array a false sense of security and not actually 
robust/redundant at all.

Another article about OBR10 (one big raid 10) being the current standard 
for server storage:
https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/262196-one-big-raid-10-the-new-standard-in-server-storage

There are always exceptions, and yours could justifiably be one of them. 
Don't know and don't want to debate it (plenty of that in the SpiceWorks 
comments). Just sending some info I was previously aware of.

-- Mark




From:   J- P 
To: NT 
Date:   09/16/2016 06:18 AM
Subject:[NTSysADM] raid 5? in 2016
Sent by:



So I inherited this server , (sitting on site since February) low and 
behold when I fire it up it turns out that whoever set it up used all 8 
discs in a raid 5 (granted they are only 500gb enterprise ssd's ) but 
still raid 5? and no hot spare?

I'm trying to figure what the purpose of this server is/was, but aside 
from a losing some space wouldn't a  raid 6 and hot spare make MUCH more 
sense?

I'd like to move some of their VMs to it, as it is a brand spanking new 
r730 with 96gb of ram

RE: [NTSysADM] raid 5? in 2016

2016-09-16 Thread Art DeKneef 
I wouldn't change anything until I found out what it was intended for. Since it 
has been sitting since February it was probably intended to replace something 
would be my guess. 

What OS is it running? If it has been sitting and not in use I'm guessing the 
server hasn't been configured for anything right now.

There's nothing inherently wrong with RAID 5. How are the partitions set up 
inside the RAID 5?

How many and what type of VMs were you thinking of moving there? 

What kind of network infrastructure would this server be connected to? The base 
R730 has 4 - 1GB Ethernet adapters.

Changing anything without running some performance tests and you could be 
wasting money.

-Original Message-
From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On 
Behalf Of Kurt Buff
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 8:04 AM
To: ntsysadm <ntsysadm@lists.myitforum.com>
Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] raid 5? in 2016

8 x 500gb = 4tb, raw.
RAID5 = 3.5 raw
RAID6 or RAID5 + hot spare = 3tb raw

Space dwindles quickly when reserving disks for failover/availability.

How many VMs? What apps running on them?

It's certainly going to be a screaming machine, regardless - depending on type 
and how many procs are in it, though I'd consider upping the RAM to 128.

Does it have a 10gb NIC? If the infrastructure supports it, I'd strongly 
consider that.

Kurt

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 6:10 AM, J- P <jnat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> So I inherited this server , (sitting on site since February) low and 
> behold when I fire it up it turns out that whoever set it up used all 
> 8 discs in a raid 5 (granted they are only 500gb enterprise ssd's ) 
> but still raid 5? and no hot spare?
>
>
> I'm trying to figure what the purpose of this server is/was, but aside 
> from a losing some space wouldn't a  raid 6 and hot spare make MUCH more 
> sense?
>
>
> I'd like to move some of their VMs to it, as it is a brand spanking 
> new r730 with 96gb of ram
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [NTSysADM] raid 5? in 2016

2016-09-16 Thread Kurt Buff 
8 x 500gb = 4tb, raw.
RAID5 = 3.5 raw
RAID6 or RAID5 + hot spare = 3tb raw

Space dwindles quickly when reserving disks for failover/availability.

How many VMs? What apps running on them?

It's certainly going to be a screaming machine, regardless - depending
on type and how many procs are in it, though I'd consider upping the
RAM to 128.

Does it have a 10gb NIC? If the infrastructure supports it, I'd
strongly consider that.

Kurt

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 6:10 AM, J- P  wrote:
> So I inherited this server , (sitting on site since February) low and behold
> when I fire it up it turns out that whoever set it up used all 8 discs in a
> raid 5 (granted they are only 500gb enterprise ssd's ) but still raid 5? and
> no hot spare?
>
>
> I'm trying to figure what the purpose of this server is/was, but aside from
> a losing some space wouldn't a  raid 6 and hot spare make MUCH more sense?
>
>
> I'd like to move some of their VMs to it, as it is a brand spanking new r730
> with 96gb of ram
>
>
>
>
>
>