SATA, SCSI or IDE 2

[dbeez]

Hi,

I want to build a RAID 1 config on my ubuntu linux server/desktop. I have a no name motherboard and unfortunately it's almost impossible to track down the specs for it because it has no FCC number, just a PCB Board number(E206922).

But anyway, the board has two IDE slots and four PCI. I want this RAID device to be as quick as possible obviously, while still having 100% redundancy.

Should I invest in a RAID PCI controller ? or should I just stick to the two IDE's on different databus lines ? If there are only small advantages to investing in a controller and storage network area, then I'd prefer to spend my cash on other things. But if there are big advantages to doing so, then I guess I could fork out an extra couple of bucks for a better motherboard with a SATA data bus.

thanks,

 

[cdogg]

Well, the fastest drives use either the SCSI or SATA interface (WD Raptor, for example). But if you aren't spending the money for that caliber, then there's hardly any benefit to scrapping what you already have just for SATA.

Now, there are SATA II drives available, and also others that support NCQ (Native Command Queuing). The extra features do enhance overall performance, and it is possible to feel a difference when comparing to a similar IDE version of the same hard drive. But again, the difference on a desktop PC will be minimal overall.

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[BaudKarma]

Here's a link to a message board where someone was asking about a mobo with the same number you've got. There might be some useful info there.

http://38.119.81.13/messageview.cfm?catid=64&threadid=290361

I did some checking on Newegg, and was surprised at how inexpensive PCI Raid cards are. They've got some there for only $13-$14, and one or two even support Linux!

At that price, I'd say keep your mobo and go with the PCI RAID solution. I don't know if SATA will be faster if it's hooked up to a PCI card, but you can probably get that information out there somewhere.



I try not to let my ignorance prevent me from offering a strong opinion.

 

[cdogg]

Well, the problem with PCI RAID is that you are restricted to 133MB/s total bandwidth, sharing it with other PCI devices. If you already have IDE ATA/133, this option may or may not make sense depending on if your board supports IDE RAID.



~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[dbeez]

Thanks guys,

I'm thinking that I should probably stop being such a tight-wad and fork out for a better mobo (BTW BaudKarma, I'd googled the link earlier but it doesn't lead anywhere unfortunately).

If the mobo is the bottleneck here with just a shared 133hz PCI bus, then what should I be going for ? I'm getting an 8mbps line installed and I want to do it justice.

The western raptors look cool cdogg, I think I might get two of them for my RAID 1 config. So I guess then that I should be running them off a SATA bus ??? Can you recommend a good mobo (I don't need any of that onboard sound/video stuff), this would be strictly business ??

How about a mobo/cpu spec that could take advantage of the prodsl line ??? and not send the bank account deep into red ?

 

[rvnguy]

dbeez,

In response to your concerns on speed:

I want this RAID device to be as quick as possible obviously, while still having 100% redundancy.

If you truly want speed i.e. for SQL data access and the like, you should consider a fully hardware implementation of RAID. If you investigate the onboard controllers they are a software/semi-hardware implementation of RAID. While this is excellent for most uses, true speed comes from a totally hardware controller with or without its own dedicated memory.

Each of these steps adds cost and you pay for speed.
Much depends on what your applications are and require in your business environment. You don't need a sledge hammer to drive a tack.

There are several mfg's of controllers and this is only one that I have used.
For ATA or SATA RAID controllers & explanation see this link:

http://www.3ware.com/products/serial_ata.asp

For the most performance/reliability SCSI is/has been the choice of major enterprises for quite some time.

Adaptec and LSI are just two of the major suppliers for SCSI RAID controllers.

Try to evaluate your businesses actual requirements and select a solution that fits the need with possibly some upgrade path if the needs might increase.

As you can see, you can spend significantly more for a storage solution than you spend for most any other item. Select wisely as overkill provides no benefit.

rvnguy
"I know everything..I just can't remember it all

 

[cdogg]

Unless you expect high I/O in a server environment, the hardware solution may be overkill as a desktop user running a modern CPU likely won't notice the difference.

You did mention that this would be a server/desktop, so it's up to you how important the server side aspect is to pay up in price for a hardware implementation.

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[rvnguy]

cdogg & dbeez,

I am hoping that I did not post unclearly.

cdogg is correct in estimation that a hardware solution might be overkill. I hope that I pointed this out in stating about onboard controllers:

"While this is excellent for most uses"

while still attempting to give you insight into your query about being as quick as possible.

Again, I stated that

"You don't need a sledge hammer to drive a tack."

as a metaphor, it really depends on what your needs are. The fastest most reliable solutions are extremely pricey and if the requirement is not that high I also cautioned that

"Select wisely as overkill provides no benefit."

I hope that this helps clear up any mis-conceptions I might have conferred in my first post.

rvnguy
"I know everything..I just can't remember it all

 

[cdogg]

rvnguy,

Sorry, you did state it well the first time. I was just placing even more emphasis on the fact that a newer PC with a fast CPU likely won't benefit as much unless it is operating in a server environment.

Of course, it is possible that an end-user workstation will also benefit if there is some serious multi-tasking and/or running apps which require intense hard disk activity.

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[dbeez]

Ya, sorry guys, I think that might have actually been my fault there. I think the term server/desktop is a little bit ambiguous.

Basically I want the machine to run as a server, but I don't want to fork out for a full server grade box (something from Sun systems maybe).

This is intended to host multiple phpbb forums simulataneously ... as many as is possible for the price range (maybe up to 1000). This will hammer my mysql database. I don't want to overkill it ... but at the same time I want to get it right the first time ... and not have to upgrade again a couple of weeks down the road.

What would be the difference between going for a full hardware implementation of RAID and setting up a mysql server box with SATA buses to handle all the database work ?
Would this be cost/efficiency beneficial ?

Thanks

 

[rvnguy]

dbeez,

If you looked at the 3Ware link that I provided you should have noticed that they have several controllers. These range from about $250-$1200 and the main differences are the number of drives supported. Not knowing the amount of data that you will be dealing with, makes it difficult to make a sound recommendation. I would estimate the volume of data you expect and then get a card that will support that number of drives and an additional 2 or more for future expansion. If you decide to go with SATA RAID, I would opt for SATAII drives and a matching controller as these are the fastest SATA drives currently available. I would also suggest that you use a "Hot Swappable Drive Case"
for your ARRAY such as:

Hot Swap Case

http://www.directron.com/dk0357ss.html

Back to basics: You are starting with a "no-name" mobo that does not support RAID IDE or SATA. You are looking at multiple phpbb forums. I suggest that you could start conservatively, with what you have plus a RAID card (IDE) to get started. While you build a rock solid box to handle the 1,000 that you envision. This kind of traffic will require a T-1 or better up link for robust response and that can wait until the traffic is built up.

Start off small and plan well for your future requirements.




rvnguy
"I know everything..I just can't remember it all

 

[cdogg]

well said

 

[dbeez]

Thanks rvnguy,

Starting small is definitely a good plan in general. But for this particular system I'm willing to plow in a little startup cash to get it rolling. This will leave my hands free to do the press work etc... to get people to know it's out there.

The best case scenario from that point of view would be to get it featured on an internet news mag eg. bbcnews.com / slashdot etc... (think BIG ehhh ?). This would definitely be my 'best case' scenario, and whether it would happen or not, I'd like to have a system capable of handling a spike of users over an hour or two period.

I have buy new parts one way or the other, and so I'd prefer to leave the upgrade path as open as possible. Even if this doesn't work out, I'll definitely get some us out of these servers.

Here's what I'm thinking of at the moment.

Dual core Opteron 240
Compatible motherboard
Seagate Baracuda 300GB
Corsair 512MB PC3200 *3
3ware Escalade SATAII RAID controller
Multidrive Bay AMS SATA 'hot-swappable' mobile rack

Here's the question .... I'm thinking of doing away with the split php/net and mysql server plan. Instead putting it on a dual-core Opteron for the same effect. What will be the bottleneck here ? ... I'm thinking that the FSB will still have to be divided between the mysql and http/php work, and so this will negate the advantages of the dual core system ... is this correct ??

thanks again,

 

[rvnguy]

Dual core Opteron 240 Does not exist see:

http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/opteron/Default.aspx

Compatible motherboard See Above They start @265
As a DC/Opteron will set you back about $900-1000 USD You might consider 2 single cores of the 240 vintage About $300-350USD for both Use the savings for a bit more Memory(a little bit)

Seagate Baracuda 300GB

Corsair 512MB PC3200 *3

3ware Escalade SATAII RAID controller


Multidrive Bay AMS SATA 'hot-swappable' mobile rack
If You are going to use a RAID 1 for OS and a RAID 5 for Other you need to get 2 of these as the backplane needs to be separate.



rvnguy
"I know everything..I just can't remember it all

 

[rvnguy]

dbeez,

Sorry, there is an Opteron 165 Dual core on the 939 pin arch.
This is different than the normal Opteron arch of 940 pins.


rvnguy
"I know everything..I just can't remember it all

 

[dbeez]

Ooops ... I don't know what site I was looking at, but I was under the impression that dual-opterons were a good deal cheaper than that. There goes my budget ...

Looks like I'll be going for something more modest. Come to think of it, I have 2 P3's already, so I guess I will start small afterall. Thanks rvnguy

I'll put the cash into the RAID controller, some HD's, a mobile rack and some nice new RAM sticks. I intend on tricking out apache anyway so I reckon that should do it. I'll leave the mobo/cpu upgrade for later on, depending on the cost/benefit ratio.

Just one more question though. Would I be better off going for, say ... 4 smaller SATA drives (about 60GB each), or just going for one big one ? I'll be running RAID 1 BTW

The reason I ask is because intuitively the four drives should give me 4 times the read/write heads and thus increase the performance. Does this increase get 'lost' somewhere along the way though ?

oh, and one other thing, if I get the RAID controller ... it'll still be plugged into a PCI 133 bus, will this negate the benefits of getting a controller. Will I just be moving the bottleneck to the mobo ?

I'd prefer to hold off getting a new mobo if I could, because I'd like to buy one at the same time as the cpu ... if I get around to buying one.

thanks,

 

[rvnguy]

debeez,

Back again; A RAID cont of the type that has been suggested has an onboard processor and if you want to pop for the type that also has dedicated memory. then it will also increase performance as much of the overhead is off loaded from the main CPU and only data needs be transmitted. This would be a good option to take to unload the PIII's from having to process this and will transplant into a new system with relative ease and be just as efficient as long as you plan on building this new box within say 18 months. Can't say after that as the technology moves rapidly.

The reason I ask is because intuitively the four drives should give me 4 times the read/write heads and thus increase the performance

You seem to be confusing RAID "0", that increases read/write performance; with RAID 1 or 5 which gives you data redundancy. This is a choice that you must make, redundancy or sheer speed.
Drive size: Get what you can for the option you select because as you become more successful at your endeavour, you can always add storage capability.

rvnguy
"I know everything..I just can't remember it all

 

[cdogg]

rvnguy,
Doesn't the hardware controller you suggested support RAID 0+1? That would be the best of both worlds if it did, or is there something that I'm forgetting?

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884