[Samba] samba failover plan on unix OS using hardware RAID
Hi all, I've been asked to produce a plan for samba failover for an office with about 30 2000/XP machines and a few unix servers. We currently have a FreeBSD single-harddrive SCSI box providing samba, dhcp and dns services. Reliability and cost are the priorities, in that order, over speed/performance. We just need the reliability - we don't ever ever want to have to switch to a new pdc. We could afford a few hours downtime in an emergency, and there would be no data to save, just configs which are easily backed up on a daily basis - I just need to assure my bosses that the trust relationship between the pdc and the XP clients won't be broken, even with a hardware failure. So, my suggestion is IDE hardware RAID 1, single but very good raid card, which can be replaced within a few hours by a trusted vendor, and 2 mirrored harddrives. What I would appreciate in terms of feedback is first, a basic sanity check - is this a standard and good plan? If not - what is and why? And second - I would really like to hear any real-life stories involving samba with hardware RAID on unix. Did anyone have a RAID, blow a harddrive, and have to/not have to rebuild the XP - trust relationship? Thanks much in advance for your time, Jeanne Schock Systems Administrator Regionalhelpwanted.com -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] samba failover plan on unix OS using hardware RAID
So, my suggestion is IDE hardware RAID 1, Since you asked, I would go with Raid 5. Your load being 20-30 clients is very light. is this a standard and good plan? Depends on many factors as your prereqs are generic being reliability and cost. I mean thats just about every ones prereq. You need to define; 1) data type 2) amertization period if any and I'm sure you have some kind of life span for both this need and tech used. 3) growth over time with hardware RAID on unix. Although my prereq are more intense than most on here, I would still suggest an external SCSI to IDE Raid box having SCSI 160/320 to a SCSI card in your PC. I would also suggest using XFS for Linux as a file system and testing viablity of RH9 if you plan to use RH that is. I've had both the 3ware internal SCSI to IDE and external RAID box being SCSI to IDE and I vote the latter Bcuz; 1) Better performance as the i/o is spread amongst the RAID box and the SCSI card. 2) Better reliability as you can get the external RAID box with hot swap for on the fly replacement of drives. 3) More controlled env as a good RAID box will have proper ventilation, etc while using a 3ware, you have to make sure your PC case has proper cooling. 4) Ease of install as you don't have to rely on specialized RAID drivers for your OS, only plain SCSI drivers being that the nature of this is host independant. Plus, don't go to cheap and being penny wise can be pound foolish. Bri- __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
RE: [Samba] samba failover plan on unix OS using hardware RAID
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 12:25 PM To: Jeanne Schock; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Samba] samba failover plan on unix OS using hardware RAID Bri- I appreciate the comments. To answer some questions - This is an office with a limited number of personnel that isn't going to grow significantly over the next 12-18 months, which is as far as I can look. It will just be serving up samba, dns, dhcp - that's all, not even acting as a file server. I don't think that IDE RAID, with a top quality card, is short-sighted in this regard. That said - I will take a good look at your comments re. scsi hardware. thanks a lot. define my needs: while I agree that reliability is a bit generic, the need I have defined is very specific, and wasn't outright addressed in your comments. I need to be certain, that if one harddrive fails, that the other harddrive will continue as the pdc without any disturbance between XP client and samba server, ie. no loss of trust relationship. Simply put, my bosses want proof that a RAID will provide this failover, and I can't find anything definite on the net on this issue. Thanks again, Jeanne Schock -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] samba failover plan on unix OS using hardware RAID
Jeanne Schock said on Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 01:19:42PM -0400: comments. I need to be certain, that if one harddrive fails, that the other harddrive will continue as the pdc without any disturbance between XP client and samba server, ie. no loss of trust relationship. Simply put, my bosses want proof that a RAID will provide this failover, and I can't find anything definite on the net on this issue. The RAID hardware is far below samba (or even the operating system), by design. The way that a RAID 5 works is that if you lose 1 drive, nothing notices (except the RAID monitor software, which will hopefully start calling pagers to get the failed drive replaced). Samba won't even notice that the drive has failed. RAID won't protect you against the whole machine crashing/power outaging/getting it's network card unplugged from the wall by a janitor, though. Something to keep in mind is that most IDE RAIDs don't let you hot swap drives, so while you won't instantly crash when you lose a drive, you will have to shutdown the computer to perform the disk replacement. M pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
RE: [Samba] samba failover plan on unix OS using hardware RAID
The RAID hardware is far below samba (or even the operating system), by design. The way that a RAID 5 works is that if you lose 1 drive, nothing notices (except the RAID monitor software, which will hopefully start calling pagers to get the failed drive replaced). Samba won't even notice that the drive has failed. exactly what I needed, thank you very much. Just needed someone out there to confirm. RAID 5 will do it. And I'm not worried about hot swapping - we can have even a few hours downtime if needed. Thanks Mark and to others that responded. Jeanne -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
