The advantage of hardware RAID is that it's operating system independent AND hardware solutions have always been much faster than software solutions
>Not always true. Depends on the hardware you try to set up. And yes it gets down to the $ and home work. I build my server/workstation for 500$ 2 years ago. and the total of 2 tb drives storage and sata raid controller with hot swap bay wore the biggest expense. 2 xeons 2.8lv (lov voltage,64bit)+4gb ram ddr 2700,nvidia dual head,sound,card readers,2xdvdrw. I play dvd or streaming movies (btw check out Alex Jones infowar) on the lcd tv while working on the workstation. All thanx to UBUNTU linux and friend that dipped me in in 5 years ago. One would think that the server side would suffer but you have to consider that lot of server out there and the people and experience behind it deals with high demand big scale.For small business and group networking environment is lot of expertize over kill. I got workstation that provides me with my personal user needs: skype-internet-recording,image editing,dvd rw......... you name it I mess with everything but gaming. Then i got vmware( i love it) that is running my server ISpconfig3(another love) where I host sites for /friend/family. Including my own DNS that I love for speed and low time to apply changes to records(vs to 6-48 hrs on other isp providers). I have power backup on that. so little money and older good hardware can go long ways if used --> With combination of today sata (dropped SCSI long time ago), the stuff just can not get any better. Like a wide open play ground. Lets just make sure the internet stays free.There is movement that tries to lock the wiring and waves down. On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Blues Renegade <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -- 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
