You haven't told us what kind of server you're looking into
recommending? A Sun V40z x86 Server (Sun probably has something newer,
but that's a very good x86 server that I've personally installed and
setup), for example, comes with a SCSI (hard drive) controller that has
hardware RAID built-in, and it works very nicely!! Sun shipped an
operating system, Solaris 10 (UNIX), with that server and their own O/S
has software RAID, yet they chose to include a high-end disk controller
with hardware RAID support. Why do you suppose they made that choice?
That controller added significantly to the cost of the server, but Sun
put reliability and performance ahead of cost. Also, the hardware RAID
is a lot easier to use, in my opinion.
The advantage of hardware RAID is that it's operating system independent
AND hardware solutions have always been much faster than software
solutions. Think of it like this: you have an operating system (Linux)
that was designed and coded to perform many different functions, one of
which is RAID; therefore, you're relying on a multi-purpose tool (a
"Swiss Army" knife, so to speak). A disk controller with RAID built-in,
on the other hand, is designed and built with ONLY 1 purpose in
mind--optimum, reliable disk performance.
If you were to build a server on your own, you would easily pay $695 and
up just for the controller, but you'd sleep well at night knowing it was
keeping your server up and running.
I strongly suggest you look at Sun, IBM, and other high-end servers,
particularly because your client is asking for such large storage
requirements. You might be surprised at what you find. Sun servers
employ all kinds of redundancy of components, from the power supply to
the microprocessors, to the memory, and the storage, and the components
are high quality. About the only component that isn't redundant is the
video adapter, and that's because it's not critical to the non-stop
functioning of the server. Chances are, you don't even have a keyboard
or monitor hooked up to the server, but instead maintain it via a
network connection (SSH), and for those times when the OS is hung, a
serial port connection to the serial console where you can repair the OS
and reboot the system and more, from another server or something as
simple as a laptop running a standard communications program, like we
used back when we relied on telephone line modems.
With that much storage required, I can only guess that the application
is mission critical... maybe even time critical?? Not a circumstance
where saving a few bucks is the highest priority, I bet.
I also suggest--since I'm guessing you're much more familiar with
Windows than Linux--that you find a Linux expert to help you through
this process, or you may find yourself quickly caught up in issues where
you're way over your head.
Best regards,
John
Kari Matthews wrote:
Hello,
I have a customer who wants a new server. I convinced him to go with
Linux instead of Windows. He then asked at the end that I put 2-1TB
drives in the server. I assume the second is for storage b/c they
deal with pretty large files.
In your opinion, what should I do with the second drive? Should I put
Linux on both drives? I was going to do a data partition on the first
drive ... if I did that for both, that would be 4 partitions. What is
the best way to handle this?
I know this is a rather silly question, but I am unsure how to best
utilize the space on the 2nd drive. It's tempting to put it in an
external casing and just use it as a backup drive. I don't know.
Opinions welcome, since you're all brilliant. TIA.
~kari
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Linux Users Group.
To post a message, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected]
For more options, visit our group at
http://groups.google.com/group/linuxusersgroup
