Re: Hardware RAID Level & Performance

Hi, David Carter wrote: We have one of the following boxes on our tape streaming system: http://www.infortrend.com/a16f_g.asp We use this one for mail (and two others for backup) with an Adaptec SCSI-controller. Works fine, the only SPOF in our setup is the RAID controller in the unit; we hav

Re: Hardware RAID Level & Performance

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Jure [ISO-8859-2] Pe_ar wrote: > Has anyone any expirience with Aplle Xserve RAID offer? It seems to be > the cheapest of the bunch. One of my collegues has a couple of Xserve RAIDs. Very shiny. The main problem seems to be that you need two separate RAID controllers (one

Re: Hardware RAID Level & Performance

Zitat von Jure Pe_ar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:50:56 +0100 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > If you want the benefits of host independant RAID and cheap SATA disks you > > may have a look at this one : > > http://www.icp-vortex.com/english/product/pci/rz_sata_8/8586rz_e.htm > >

Re: Hardware RAID Level & Performance

No experience with them, but they're the best specs I've seen for SATA external RAID - decent processor and NCQ support. There's quite a few companies making these SATA-to-SCSI and SATA-to-FC boxes. A lot

Re: Hardware RAID Level & Performance

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Norman Zhang wrote: > Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > >*All* Intel hardware RAID adapters look the same to the OS, AFAIK. So yes, > >it is supported by Linux 2.4 and 2.6, and very well supported at that. > > http://downloadfinder.intel.com/scripts-df/filter_results.asp?st

Re: Hardware RAID Level & Performance

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:41:29 -0800 David R Bosso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I just ran across these today: > > yneRAID6-SATA.htm> > > No experience with them, but they're the best specs I've seen for SATA > external R

Re: Hardware RAID Level & Performance

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Norman Zhang wrote: > Do you have some figures? >From the top of my head, about 4MB/s write and 10-30MB/s reading on a 5-disc RAID5 array. If that's enough for your needs, go for it. Linux software RAID can do better than that (but it eats some CPU *and* it doesn't drive the

Re: Hardware RAID Level & Performance

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: From the top of my head, about 4MB/s write and 10-30MB/s reading on a 5-disc RAID5 array. If that's enough for your needs, go for it. Linux software RAID can do better than that (but it eats some CPU *and* it doesn't drive the SAFTE enclosure, nor can it do glob

Re: Hardware RAID Level & Performance

--On Thursday, February 17, 2005 10:56 PM +0100 Jure Pe ar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Because of that (and because I already have FC infrastructure in place) I'm mostly interested in standalone disk enclosures doing their own raid with cheap sata drives and big caches with batteries. I just ran a

Re: Hardware RAID Level & Performance

Kevin P. Fleming wrote: Even better, they just released the AX100i, which uses iSCSI for the host interface. The array units are about the same price, but connectivity for 6-8 hosts is far, far cheaper than FC. FYI iSCSI eats up a ton of CPU unless you're using a TOE NIC. -jim --- Cyrus Home Pag

Re: Hardware RAID Level & Performance

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: Thanks for your explanation. How's this one http://www.supermicro.com/products/accessories/addon/DAC-ZCRINT.cfm It uses Intel 80303 I/O processor boards? I'm planning to build my Cyrus-IMAPD on this HW. Well, I have something like it, an Intel SRCZCR. It is also

Re: Hardware RAID Level & Performance

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:50:56 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > If you want the benefits of host independant RAID and cheap SATA disks you > may have a look at this one : > http://www.icp-vortex.com/english/product/pci/rz_sata_8/8586rz_e.htm I'm actually very afraif of all those cards with plenty o

Re: Hardware RAID Level & Performance

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Aleksandar Milivojevic wrote: > Norman Zhang wrote: > >Thanks for your explanation. How's this one > >http://www.supermicro.com/products/accessories/addon/DAC-ZCRINT.cfm > > > >It uses Intel 80303 I/O processor boards? I'm planning to build my > >Cyrus-IMAPD on this HW. Well,

Re: Hardware RAID Level & Performance

Andrew Morgan wrote: You may want to look into Dell's AX100 SAN (a rebranded version of the EMC Clariion AX100). These use SATA drives with a FC front end. They are relatively inexpensive for the amount of storage you can get, if your I/O needs match. You can also go a little more upscale wit

Re: Hardware RAID Level & Performance

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 10:19:28 -0800 (PST) Andrew Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You may want to look into Dell's AX100 SAN (a rebranded version of the EMC > > Clariion AX100). These use SATA drives with a FC front end. They are > relatively inexpensive for the amount of storage you can get

Re: Hardware RAID Level & Performance

Zitat von Aleksandar Milivojevic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Norman Zhang wrote: > > May I ask has anyone consider SATA RAID yet? I seems to be a very > > inexpensive solution. > > All inexpensive SATA RAID solutions are "fake RAID". This includes > almost all SATA controlers that are integrated into

Re: Hardware RAID Level & Performance

Norman Zhang wrote: Thanks for your explanation. How's this one http://www.supermicro.com/products/accessories/addon/DAC-ZCRINT.cfm It uses Intel 80303 I/O processor boards? I'm planning to build my Cyrus-IMAPD on this HW. Don't know much about it. Looks as if it might be real hardware RAID. -- A

Re: Hardware RAID Level & Performance

Andrew Morgan wrote: You may want to look into Dell's AX100 SAN (a rebranded version of the EMC Clariion AX100). These use SATA drives with a FC front end. They are relatively inexpensive for the amount of storage you can get, if your I/O needs match. You can also go a little more upscale wit

Re: Hardware RAID Level & Performance

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Aleksandar Milivojevic wrote: Norman Zhang wrote: May I ask has anyone consider SATA RAID yet? I seems to be a very inexpensive solution. All is not dark. There are several companies making real hardware RAID solutions that use SATA disks. 3ware is one of them and seems to

Re: Hardware RAID Level & Performance

Norman Zhang wrote: May I ask has anyone consider SATA RAID yet? I seems to be a very inexpensive solution. All inexpensive SATA RAID solutions are "fake RAID". This includes almost all SATA controlers that are integrated into motherboards and marketed as RAID capable. They are software RAID.

Re: Hardware RAID Level & Performance

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:51:09 -0800 Norman Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > May I ask has anyone consider SATA RAID yet? I seems to be a very > inexpensive solution. Yes, I plan to research this thorouglhy Really Soon Now. A Tb or two would be perfect for users that come around once evey month

Re: Hardware RAID Level & Performance

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005, Norman Zhang wrote: > I'm not sure how's XFS compared to other fs. I've been using it for few > years. It seems to be fine. It works fast as all heck, but your data will *NOT* necessarily survive a crash (zeros everywhere if the data was not on disk). The filesystem metadata

Re: Hardware RAID Level & Performance

Jure Pe_ar wrote: Maybe it really does get a fatal corrutpion with a bit or byte memory error sooner than ext3 ... can't really compare :) But reiserfsck did some real magic for me at least once ... when i thought the fs was toasted, it nicely put it back together again, lost a few megs and put ~2

Re: Hardware RAID Level & Performance

Umem cards seem a preferred choice, since there's a driver for them in the standard linux kernel ... But they're kinda hard to find these days, so Rob Mueller found these in our last discussion: http://www.curtisssd.com/products/drives/nitrofc/ Rob, do you mind sharing some expiriences with them

Re: Hardware RAID Level & Performance

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:29:27 -0500 Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Do you have a particular suggestion for brand/model of device? It would > obviously have to be redundant (or capable of being made redundant) and > cost effectiveness would be critical. Umem cards seem a preferred choice, since

Re: Hardware RAID Level & Performance

1. Use 2.6.10+ ext3, with all hashing enabled 2. Use an external journal in a fast device (not the RAID5 array) Cyrus 2.3 CVS code enables you to split indexes and cyrus db files into their own partition. That's where most of the i/o activity is concentrated, so you only need to optimize that pa

Re: Hardware RAID Level & Performance

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 17:37:05 -0200 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've heard bad things about reiserfs' capabilities to withstand > corruption *and* to be repaired later. Something that I'd take into > account when choosing the FS for the big spools. But maybe reiserfs h

Re: Hardware RAID Level & Performance

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Jure Pe_ar wrote: > On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:18:57 -0500 > Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > What are the implication of raid 10 vs. raid 5 with cyrus? Are they > > significant? Does EXT3 play into the discussion? 1. Use 2.6.10+ ext3, with all hashing enabled 2. Use an exte

Re: Hardware RAID Level & Performance

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:18:57 -0500 Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What are the implication of raid 10 vs. raid 5 with cyrus? Are they > significant? Does EXT3 play into the discussion? Cyrus 2.3 CVS code enables you to split indexes and cyrus db files into their own partition. That's where mos

Hardware RAID Level & Performance

We're rebuilding our mail cluster using two servers clustered together with DRBD/heartbeat. We've run DRBD/heartbeat before, so Im fairly comfortable with teh performance implications of that. What i'm wondering is, how the hardware raid level on the two poweredge 2650s (aacraid perc3/di contro