Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1

    Lightbulb Which hard drive setup for this server would be best?

    Hello,

    I'm look at ev1 for their new super servers that they are offering
    http://www.ev1servers.net/english/xeon_series32.asp


    Here are the two configuarations I am looking at


    Intel Dual Xeon 3.2 GHz
    4 GB RAM
    (4) 250GB SATA RAID 0+1 - 500GB Usable Hard Drives
    3000 GB Monthly Transfer
    Setup:$199 Monthly:$499

    - Or -

    Intel Dual Xeon 3.2 GHz
    4 GB RAM
    (4) 73GB SCSI RAID 5 - 216GB Usable Space
    3000 GB Monthly Transfer
    Setup:$199 Monthly:$499



    For a web hosting server, which configuration would you chose? More usable space, or less space but scsi drives in raid 5 array?

    Thanks

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    5,084
    Personally, if you can afford it I always recommend SCSI. SATA is definetly better than IDE but still not (in my opinion) as good as SCSI.

    Sorry I know that others will disagree but my optimal and proven setup has always been mirrored OS drives and raid 5 data drives. Failing having 2 different volumes I like Raid5.
    André Allen | E: aallen(a)linovus.ca
    Linovus Holdings Inc
    Shared Hosting, Reseller Hosting, VPS, Dedicated Servers & Public Cloud | USA, Canada & UK - 24x7x365 Support

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    6,889
    Definitely the SCSI setup. The differnces between SATA and SCSI are significant, so you'll be happy with the choice. Though, a lot does depend on the RAID cards you're using there.
    Karl Zimmerman - Steadfast: Managed Dedicated Servers and Premium Colocation
    karl @ steadfast.net - Sales/Support: 312-602-2689
    Cloud Hosting, Managed Dedicated Servers, Chicago Colocation, and New Jersey Colocation
    Now Open in New Jersey! - Contact us for New Jersey colocation or dedicated servers

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,024
    IMHO, the Intel Dual Xeon 3.2 GHz with 4 GB RAM and
    (4) 250GB SATA RAID 0+1 - 500GB Usable Hard Drives maybe more usefull for you if you use it for hosting.

    The strength of RAID 0+1 is it's data throughput and I/O transfer rate. It combines RAID 0 (stripping which is fast) and RAID 1 (for redundancy). Plus the size ... 500GB is a lot.

    In terms of usability, with 500GB usable data, you can do a lot of things with it. In terms of performance, SCSI may out perform SATA in some cases but SATA should be fast enough for almost all web applications, specially when it is RAID 0+1. For redundancy, RAID 5 and RAID 0+1 is about the same.

    For hosting, I believe the SATA has slight advantage over the SCSI in terms of business perspective and functionality. But performance wise, SCSI should be a little faster.
    <<< Please see Forum Guidelines for signature setup. >>>

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    1,396
    I have afew of the 3.2's 4Gb (4) 250GB sata with ev1 and they are amazing...

    The speed and performace you get with those verus the 2.4 and (2) 73GB scsi's are a huge increase
    Eleven2 Web Hosting - World-Wide Hosting, Done Right!
    Shared Hosting | Reseller Hosting | Dedicated | Virtual Premium Servers
    Server Locations in: Dallas | Los Angeles | Singapore | Amsterdam

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    623
    I have a Dell PE 1800 and PE 2850 with samiliar configuration except the HD. The 1800 has CERC with RAID-0 SATA (7200.8 with NCQ). The 2850 has PERC with RAID-1 15k SCSI.

    Passmark shows very similar performance on everything except the HD - the 1800 scored 250, the 2850 scored 350, despite 1800 has RAID-0 and 2850 had RAID-1.

    I think RAID-1 and RAID-5's performance would be close. 10k SCSI drives would have brought the score down to around 240. Using SATA drives without NCQ will reduce the performance somewhat too. With everything considered, I think the RAID-0+1 SATA would score about the same as RAID-5 SCSI or a little lower.

    However (a big however), like KarlZimmer said, the choice of RAID card is important. If the SATA RAID card depend on the CPU for processing, it will reduce the speed (and reliability) significantly. If it is a quality card (like 3ware), it will be fine.

  7. #7
    Hello,

    3 Questions....


    1.) Because these servers will be at ev1, do you know what raid cards they use? Are they just cheap ones, or would they be considered high quality? If you don't know, what question should I ask ev1?


    2.) Would I be able to notice any speed difference between the SATA Raid 0+1 Setup and the SCSI Raid 5 setup?


    Thanks...
    Last edited by 2HostUNow; 07-06-2005 at 04:05 AM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    6,889
    As a note. I also recommended the SCSI setup as I don't see any use for 500GB on one system in a typical web hosting setup. We have a decent sized shared hosting customer base and we use high end dual Xeon systems with RAID arrays, etc. on all our systems and none of them are using over 100GB of disk space... If you go with 500GB and don't overload the system you're likely looking at a lot of wasted disk space, though of course everyone's situation is different.
    Karl Zimmerman - Steadfast: Managed Dedicated Servers and Premium Colocation
    karl @ steadfast.net - Sales/Support: 312-602-2689
    Cloud Hosting, Managed Dedicated Servers, Chicago Colocation, and New Jersey Colocation
    Now Open in New Jersey! - Contact us for New Jersey colocation or dedicated servers

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Posts
    1,164
    1.) Because these servers will be at ev1, do you know what raid cards they use? Are they just cheap ones, or would they be considered high quality? If you don't know, what question should I ask ev1?
    Depends, if you go with SATA, you'll probably get an OS based SATA driver setup, else you'll be looking at an adaptec.
    2.) Would I be able to notice any speed difference between the SATA Raid 0+1 Setup and the SCSI Raid 5 setup?
    Your IO will be slightly higher on SCSI but not noticable, Both run at 10k RPM, so its minimal.

    Good luck in your choice.
    Rob Greenwood
    RedHat Certified, Unix Consultant
    http://www.linkedin.com/in/bilco105

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    475
    SCSI of course, it's faster than SATA and IDE
    Dixiy.com - Professional Web Hosting Provider since 2002
    AutoCreation.net - Automation Solution for cPanel Hosting! + Illegal File Scanner
    WHDir.net - Your complete Web Hosting Directory with Hosting/Server Tutorials

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Posts
    1,164
    Originally posted by Raptors
    SCSI of course, it's faster than SATA and IDE
    http://www.storagereview.com/article...0625TCQ_1.html
    Rob Greenwood
    RedHat Certified, Unix Consultant
    http://www.linkedin.com/in/bilco105

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    5,084
    Good link SolidLogix, I confess to having a bit of bias to SCSI because of things like TCQ and frankly more information on who knows what they are doing with SCSI compared to SATA.
    André Allen | E: aallen(a)linovus.ca
    Linovus Holdings Inc
    Shared Hosting, Reseller Hosting, VPS, Dedicated Servers & Public Cloud | USA, Canada & UK - 24x7x365 Support

  13. #13
    So I take it that going with the larger hard drives would be better for someone in the hosting industry.


    Does raid 0+1 offer the same level of security has raid 1? If one hard drive goes bad, will my data and server still be fine?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    17
    Does raid 0+1 offer the same level of security has raid 1? If one hard drive goes bad, will my data and server still be fine?
    In terms of security, yes. However, raid 0+1 will boost the performance as well. For hosting business, SATA with raid 0+1 is good, just make sure you get good controller card. If you are only looking for servers, there is one recommondation. jhpcomputer.com/catalog

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    San Jose
    Posts
    902
    Raid 10 or 1+0 is better than 0+1 in the case a drive goes bad. With RAID 10, the one drive is mirrored and you're back to full protection.

    With RAID 0+1, your stripe is broken, and the whole stripe has be be remirrored after replacement.

    That being said, if the RAID card doesn't do RAID 10, or RAID 1, just RAID 0, then doing RAID 1 in software with the hardware RAID 0 volumes gives you better performance than doing everything in software.

    At my work, they did a RAID 0+1 with 11 drives in the stripes, and were shocked when it took 7 hours to remirror the volume using Veritas.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •