Server HD Performance 3

[SeadnaS]

Hi folks,

I have been looking at some SSD Cache drives recently and I'm also trying to improve hard disk performance on our server. The server is a Dell PowerEdge T310 with 3x500gig SATA2 7200rpm drives in RAID 5, the Raid controller is a Dell PERC S300 which i'm told is software based.

Would i see much of a performance increase by using a hardware based RAID controller card? And how would I implement an SSD Cache drive (like an OCZ Synapse drive) in this raid 5 system?

Its got Windows Server 2003 Standard with 4gigs ram and an Intel Xeon X3430 (Quad Core)

Thanks in advance,

Seadna.

 

[goombawaho]

You don't give much info, such as:

1. Is the O.S. on the same RAID5 as the data storage?
2. How much RAM is in the system.

Both of those could be slowing you down.

But, the specs say the following
Drive Bays Cabled HD options: Up to four 3.5” SAS or SATA drives
Hot-Swap HD options: Up to four 3.5” SAS or SATA, or 2.5” SAS or SSD drives

So, I might consider setting it up this way. You probably would need to buy a second controller for this and would have to reload the operating system.
Use two of the cabled drive bays and set up a RAID 1 with the existing controller for the operating system only.

Use three (or four for hot spare) of the hot swap bays for a RAID 5 array using the new controller.

This will separate data hard drive activity from O.S. activity and put the data on a better controller. Something like an Adaptec RAID 6405

I can't speak to the SSD Cache drive.

 

[SeadnaS]

As i said it has 4 gigs of ram. The OS and storage are all on the same RAID array.

I was thinking maybe SSD Cache drive like an OCZ Synapse drive would be an easy solution as this can be installed to cache the RAID array. This means i do not need to change the RAID array or reinstall windows. I would merely install the SSD cache drive and the accompanying software.

 

[goombawaho]

I missed the RAM info. How many users is it servicing?? Databases or just files?? That makes a difference too.

I'm old school, so I don't bite for the latest technology. What I told you is a tried and true setup standard.

Somebody else will have to grade your idea of the SSD cache in terms of increased performance and reliability.

 

[FredWagner]

Even back in ancient days, on Netware servers, the standard procedure was to load the operating system on its own physical volume, and put the data on different physical volume. We used RAID 1 back then. When SQL came along, the standard became THREE volumes, one for the OS, another for the SQL, and a third volume for the data. You don't need solid state drives, you just need to separate the functions on to their own volumes.
Goombawahoo is giving you good advice!
Also, 4GB is not much for a server. We just shut down a box that had been running since 2001 -it had dual Pentium 700's, 4GB of RAM, and three volumes - C with 17GB in RAID 1, D (for SQL) with 180GB in RAID 5, and E (for Data) with about 800 GB in RAID 5. Those RAID 5 drives had about 14 spindles, but they really worked well. The hardware RAID was on a four channel SCSI controller card, with 3 channels used.

Fred Wagner

 

[rclarke250]

Also, Sas will be faster than Sata. Because they are built from the scsi drives that had a rotational speed of 10k to 15k. Also, a better raid setup, will give you better throughput also. As stated OS, in a mirror, and data either on a raid 10, or 5, depending on how much money/space you can use. May have to run the data from an external expansion drawer. You don't need any type of solid state, not with a single quad core xeon, and 4 GB of memory. It would be like driving a Porsche in a school zone.

 

[BadBigBen]

have a look at:

Adaptec maxCache™ 64GB SSD Cache Performance Kit

http://www.adaptec.com/en-us/products/cloudcomputing/maxcache/64gb-ssd-cache-performance/index.html

Ben
"If it works don't fix it! If it doesn't use a sledgehammer..."
How to ask a question, when posting them to a professional forum.
Only ask questions with yes/no answers if you want "yes" or "no"

 

[BadBigBen]

meant to post this link from Adaptec instead:

Adaptec Series 6Q with maxCache 2

http://www.adaptec.com/en-us/_common/maxcache/

Ben
"If it works don't fix it! If it doesn't use a sledgehammer..."
How to ask a question, when posting them to a professional forum.
Only ask questions with yes/no answers if you want "yes" or "no"

 

[goombawaho]

Goombawahoo is giving you good advice!" THANK YOU - I know a little

"Also, 4GB is not much for a server." WORD!! Again, how many users???

"external expansion drawer (with RAID of course)" good idea/option

"rotational speed of 10k to 15k" a desktop SATA drive is not the same as a server grade drive

With all that said, the cached SSD looks interesting (had never heard of it before). Need to read up on it. Assuming (without reading up yet) that IF the SSD failed there is no implication for the actual data on the spinning media.

You'll have to compare costs of:
1. Same server with SSD cache
2. The upgrades I mentioned
3. New server

Depending on the age of the server and the replacement horizon, it might change your course of action.

 

[SeadnaS]

We're hosting some access databases on this server and we will be upsizing the backend to SQL server in the near future. We currently have about thirty people that access the server but not concurrently. I'd say we have 10-15 people accessing it usually at any one time.

So a RAM upgrade is a must then? And separate volumes for data and OS.

 

[goombawaho]

I don't think there is a RAM upgrade in your future if you're running 32bit Server 2003. You're maxed out at 4GB.

Separate volumes for data and O.S. is always recommended, but depending on how much that cache drive costs, you might be able to do that and nothing else and get a performance improvement.

I was trying to see if there is a machine replacement planned any time soon. If not, see how much the cache drive is - it being the simplest way to improve performance without ordering a bunch of stuff for the server and reconfiguring everything.

 

[JimInKS]

4G of RAM should be plenty for Windows 2003 Server for that number of users as long as all you are using it for file/print/db server.

Goombawaho's advice on "standard" server setup is good. Most of my servers are configured that way.

What performance problems are you having?

I would be very reluctant to do any thing that monkeyed with the caching of the hard drive. That could be a recipe for data corruption. You may be looking at a re-install of the OS anyway if you go that route. And, support for Server 2003 may be a lacking.

 

[SeadnaS]

JimInKS i looked into installing an OCZ Synapse cache drive. What they tell me is it is completely safe. If the cache drive fails all your data is still safe on your HDD's, the cache drive simply caches the "hot data". The only problem now is if i want that particular model I need to upgrade to windows server 2008 as they do not have driver support for anything older.

Thanks for all the help btw guys.

 

[SeadnaS]

The performance problems are mostly database slowdown. When there is more than one person in the database it becomes very slow when running any queries. We have an outside IT contractor guy, and he said that the hard-drives are to blame. This is a split access database btw.

 

[goombawaho]

the hard drives are to blame

This is possible. For servers, you really need enterprise drives (10,000/15000K).
Be careful, some IT contractors know nothing. Not saying this is the case, but beware. Don't swallow the bait and the hook without getting different options.

If you can't run the cache drive with 2003, I would say that you should think about a new server in the future and limp along for now. For the new server look at separating the O.S. from the database and look at RAID setups that are good for data access speed and then look at being able to add the cache drive AFTER the new server is set up if database access is still too slow.

Ask the IT putz to give you his recommended setup, then post it on one of the forums for analysis.

 

[JimInKS]

How big are your databases and who designed them?
It could be that a db redesign could also fix your issues.
I see you said you are going to SQL for the backend. That may make a HUGE difference.

Is you network all 1G? With Access you are shipping a lot of data around. If the backed database file is a different version than the front end that can also impact performance.

 

[goombawaho]

Good point JimInKS - network infrastructure is important as well and the database itself. Every piece can be the weak point.

 

[FredWagner]

SeadnaS - You may be pleasantly shocked at how much converting from a shared Access DB to SQL can improve performance. But separating the OS, DB, and Data storage onto separate volumes could still help.

Fred Wagner

 

[SeadnaS]

Our back end is two *.mdb files, one is 0.98gigs the other is 172 mb

I don't know if the network is 1G or not.

 

[hairlessupportmonkey]

I would also like to add the T310 is a base model server, and 7200K desktop drives are not going to help.

If your end users are complaining of performance issues, its time to look at all the options.

I would be inclined to run a nice sized server with VMware, one for the OS - file / print and other for a nice SQL server. I cant imagine a 1GB access DB very nice to work with!

server specs:
1 x HP DL380 G7 (for VMware)
32GB RAM
SAS drives for either on board storage or just VMWare
iSCSI offload NICs for connection to:
1 x NAS /SAN with high IOPs for storage of user data and SQL DB.
Offsite Backups into the cloud.

I just wouldnt offer up a database on an entry level server like this for multiple user access. especially access!!!

http://www.quackit.com/microsoft_access/tutorial/microsoft_access_versus_sql_server.cfm

ACSS - SME
General Geek