CentOS - Nov 2017 - low end file server with h/w RAID - recommendations

Richard Zimmerman wrote:
> hw wrote:
>> Next question: you want RAID, how much storage do you need? Will 4 or 8
3.5" drives be enough (DO NOT GET crappy 2.5" drives - they're
*much* more expensive than the 3.5" drives, and >smaller disk space. For
the price of a 1TB 2.5", I can get at least a 4TB WD Red.
>
> I will second Marks comments here. Yes, 2.5" drive enterprise drives
have been an issue. +1 for the WD Red drives, so far 3.5" w/ 2tb and 4tb
drives, ZERO issues. I've had good luck with HGST NAS drives too.
Unfortunately, that will come to an end soon (With WD owning HGST).
Most servers can fit only 2.5" disks these days.  I keep wondering what
everyone is doing about storage.

On 2 November 2017 at 12:21, hw <hw at gc-24.de>
wrote:
> Richard Zimmerman wrote:
>>
>> hw wrote:
>>>
>>> Next question: you want RAID, how much storage do you need? Will 4
or 8
>>> 3.5" drives be enough (DO NOT GET crappy 2.5" drives -
they're *much* more
>>> expensive than the 3.5" drives, and >smaller disk space.
For the price of a
>>> 1TB 2.5", I can get at least a 4TB WD Red.
>>
>>
>> I will second Marks comments here. Yes, 2.5" drive enterprise
drives have
>> been an issue. +1 for the WD Red drives, so far 3.5" w/ 2tb and
4tb drives,
>> ZERO issues. I've had good luck with HGST NAS drives too.
Unfortunately,
>> that will come to an end soon (With WD owning HGST).
>
>
> Most servers can fit only 2.5" disks these days.  I keep wondering
what
> everyone is doing about storage.
>
The 2.5 inch drives have a pretty good lifetime these days and seem to
be all you can get for various storage systems. It is like back when
we all wanted and loved 5.25 drives and all you could get was the
crappy 3.5 inch ones. And I expect in 3-5 years the 2.5 inch ones will
be replaced with only able to get the in card SIMM like drives.
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS at centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.

On Thu, November 2, 2017 11:21 am, hw wrote:
> Richard Zimmerman wrote:
>> hw wrote:
>>> Next question: you want RAID, how much storage do you need? Will 4
or 8
>>> 3.5" drives be enough (DO NOT GET crappy 2.5" drives -
they're *much*
>>> more expensive than the 3.5" drives, and >smaller disk
space. For the
>>> price of a 1TB 2.5", I can get at least a 4TB WD Red.
>>
>> I will second Marks comments here. Yes, 2.5" drive enterprise
drives
>> have been an issue. +1 for the WD Red drives, so far 3.5" w/ 2tb
and 4tb
>> drives, ZERO issues. I've had good luck with HGST NAS drives too.
>> Unfortunately, that will come to an end soon (With WD owning HGST).
>
> Most servers can fit only 2.5" disks these days.  I keep wondering
what
> everyone is doing about storage.
Ignoring existence of 2.5 inch, and getting rackmount machines with with
3.5 inch drives. Space wise (meaning GB wise) per U of rack they are at
the very least the same, only much cheaper per GB.

Just my $0.02

Valeri
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS at centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

>Most servers can fit only 2.5" disks these days.  I keep wondering what
everyone is doing about storage.
The DL20 gen9 I bought was setup LFF (3.5")

The DL380 gen9 could be either SFF (2.5) or LFF. I had to buy SFF for our new
server due I was told to spec / build it exact to vendor recommendation.

To better? Answer this. Agreed, I'm not a fanboy of 2.5" stuff in
enterprise equipment. To me a better but more costly answer would be setup a LFF
SAN server and go from there.

My employer is a SMB (60 people?) and our storage is exploding at times.
SAN's can give more economical storage and flexibility. Especially since
were considering fail-over scenarios for not only our Windows ERP software but
our all Linux based :) file servers.

Regards,

Richard

hw wrote:
> Richard Zimmerman wrote:
>> hw wrote:
>>> Next question: you want RAID, how much storage do you need? Will 4
or 8
>>> 3.5" drives be enough (DO NOT GET crappy 2.5" drives -
they're *much*
>>> more expensive than the 3.5" drives, and >smaller disk
space. For the
>>> price of a 1TB 2.5", I can get at least a 4TB WD Red.
>>
>> I will second Marks comments here. Yes, 2.5" drive enterprise
drives
>> have been an issue. +1 for the WD Red drives, so far 3.5" w/ 2tb
and 4tb
>> drives, ZERO issues. I've had good luck with HGST NAS drives too.
>> Unfortunately, that will come to an end soon (With WD owning HGST).
>
> Most servers can fit only 2.5" disks these days.  I keep wondering
what
> everyone is doing about storage.
Sorry, that depends 100% on what you *order*. We tell our resellers that
we want 3.5" drives, that's what we get. All the vendors, intluding
Dell,
and the smaller ones, online you can configure what you want, to price it
out, and they *all* offer 3.5" drives.

The only 2.5" drives that we're ok with getting are the two internal
SSD's
for RAID 1 for the o/s, and nothing else.

You may not be talking to the right sales folks.

Valeri Galtsev wrote:
>
> On Thu, November 2, 2017 11:21 am, hw wrote:
>> Richard Zimmerman wrote:
>>> hw wrote:
>>>> Next question: you want RAID, how much storage do you need?
Will 4 or
>>>> 8
>>>> 3.5" drives be enough (DO NOT GET crappy 2.5" drives
- they're *much*
>>>> more expensive than the 3.5" drives, and >smaller disk
space. For the
>>>> price of a 1TB 2.5", I can get at least a 4TB WD Red.
>>>
>>> I will second Marks comments here. Yes, 2.5" drive enterprise
drives
>>> have been an issue. +1 for the WD Red drives, so far 3.5" w/
2tb and
>>> 4tb
>>> drives, ZERO issues. I've had good luck with HGST NAS drives
too.
>>> Unfortunately, that will come to an end soon (With WD owning HGST).
>>
>> Most servers can fit only 2.5" disks these days.  I keep wondering
what
>> everyone is doing about storage.
>
> Ignoring existence of 2.5 inch, and getting rackmount machines with with
> 3.5 inch drives. Space wise (meaning GB wise) per U of rack they are at
> the very least the same, only much cheaper per GB.
>
Y'know, I just had a thought: are there folks here who, when they say
"server", are *not* thinking of rackmount servers?

       mark

Richard Zimmerman wrote:
>>Most servers can fit only 2.5" disks these days.  I keep wondering
what
>> everyone is doing about storage.
>
> The DL20 gen9 I bought was setup LFF (3.5")
>
> The DL380 gen9 could be either SFF (2.5) or LFF. I had to buy SFF for our
> new server due I was told to spec / build it exact to vendor
> recommendation.
>
> To better? Answer this. Agreed, I'm not a fanboy of 2.5" stuff in
> enterprise equipment. To me a better but more costly answer would be setup
> a LFF SAN server and go from there.
>
> My employer is a SMB (60 people?) and our storage is exploding at times.
> SAN's can give more economical storage and flexibility. Especially
since
> were considering fail-over scenarios for not only our Windows ERP software
> but our all Linux based :) file servers.
>
Storage.... Ok, I'll give a plug to one of our favorite vendors: AC&NC,
who manufacture JetStor.They're RAID appliances, very nice internal
webserver to manages, and yes, it can send emails. The prices are *very*
reasonable, cheaper than Dell, or HP, or even NetApp. Lessee, we just
bought a couple, one for a new system, one for a backup thereof. Each of
them ran just over $12k, with 12 10TB SAS drives, and a DAS card. And they
are both reliable and *last*. We did just finally retire the one pair that
had a true SCSI connection....

       mark

On 11/2/2017 9:21 AM, hw wrote:
> Richard Zimmerman wrote:
>> hw wrote:
>>> Next question: you want RAID, how much storage do you need? Will 4 
>>> or 8 3.5" drives be enough (DO NOT GET crappy 2.5" drives
- they're
>>> *much* more expensive than the 3.5" drives, and >smaller
disk space.
>>> For the price of a 1TB 2.5", I can get at least a 4TB WD Red.
>>
>> I will second Marks comments here. Yes, 2.5" drive enterprise
drives
>> have been an issue. +1 for the WD Red drives, so far 3.5" w/ 2tb
and
>> 4tb drives, ZERO issues. I've had good luck with HGST NAS drives
too.
>> Unfortunately, that will come to an end soon (With WD owning HGST).
>
> Most servers can fit only 2.5" disks these days.? I keep wondering
what
> everyone is doing about storage. 

2.5" SAS drives spinning at 10k and 15k RPM are the performance solution 
for online storage, like databases and so forth.?? also make more sense 
for large arrays of SSDs, as they don't even come in 3.5". ?? With
2.5"
you can pack more disks per U (24-25 2.5" per 2U face, vs 12 3.5" max 
per 2U)... more disks == more IOPS.

3.5" SATA drives spinning at 5400 and 7200 rpm are the choice for large 
capacity bulk 'nearline' storage which is typically sequentially written
once



-- 
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz

John R Pierce wrote:
> On 11/2/2017 9:21 AM, hw wrote:
>> Richard Zimmerman wrote:
>>> hw wrote:
>>>> Next question: you want RAID, how much storage do you need?
Will 4
>>>> or 8 3.5" drives be enough (DO NOT GET crappy 2.5"
drives - they're
>>>> *much* more expensive than the 3.5" drives, and
>smaller disk space.
>>>> For the price of a 1TB 2.5", I can get at least a 4TB WD
Red.
>>>
>>> I will second Marks comments here. Yes, 2.5" drive enterprise
drives
>>> have been an issue. +1 for the WD Red drives, so far 3.5" w/
2tb and
>>> 4tb drives, ZERO issues. I've had good luck with HGST NAS
drives too.
>>> Unfortunately, that will come to an end soon (With WD owning HGST).
>>
>> Most servers can fit only 2.5" disks these days.? I keep wondering
what
>> everyone is doing about storage.
>
>
> 2.5" SAS drives spinning at 10k and 15k RPM are the performance
solution
> for online storage, like databases and so forth.?? also make more sense
> for large arrays of SSDs, as they don't even come in 3.5". ?? With
2.5"
> you can pack more disks per U (24-25 2.5" per 2U face, vs 12 3.5"
max
> per 2U)... more disks == more IOPS.
>
> 3.5" SATA drives spinning at 5400 and 7200 rpm are the choice for
large
> capacity bulk 'nearline' storage which is typically sequentially
written
> once
>
We have a fair number of SAS 3.5" drives, and yes, 10k or 15k speeds.

    mark

Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On 2 November 2017 at 12:21, hw <hw at gc-24.de> wrote:
>> Richard Zimmerman wrote:
>>>
>>> hw wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Next question: you want RAID, how much storage do you need?
Will 4 or 8
>>>> 3.5" drives be enough (DO NOT GET crappy 2.5" drives
- they're *much* more
>>>> expensive than the 3.5" drives, and >smaller disk
space. For the price of a
>>>> 1TB 2.5", I can get at least a 4TB WD Red.
>>>
>>>
>>> I will second Marks comments here. Yes, 2.5" drive enterprise
drives have
>>> been an issue. +1 for the WD Red drives, so far 3.5" w/ 2tb
and 4tb drives,
>>> ZERO issues. I've had good luck with HGST NAS drives too.
Unfortunately,
>>> that will come to an end soon (With WD owning HGST).
>>
>>
>> Most servers can fit only 2.5" disks these days.  I keep wondering
what
>> everyone is doing about storage.
>>
>
> The 2.5 inch drives have a pretty good lifetime these days and seem to
> be all you can get for various storage systems. It is like back when
> we all wanted and loved 5.25 drives and all you could get was the
> crappy 3.5 inch ones. And I expect in 3-5 years the 2.5 inch ones will
> be replaced with only able to get the in card SIMM like drives.
Look at the prices.  Who can afford even 20TB storage in 2.5" disks.

m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote:
> hw wrote:
>> Richard Zimmerman wrote:
>>> hw wrote:
>>>> Next question: you want RAID, how much storage do you need?
Will 4 or 8
>>>> 3.5" drives be enough (DO NOT GET crappy 2.5" drives
- they're *much*
>>>> more expensive than the 3.5" drives, and >smaller disk
space. For the
>>>> price of a 1TB 2.5", I can get at least a 4TB WD Red.
>>>
>>> I will second Marks comments here. Yes, 2.5" drive enterprise
drives
>>> have been an issue. +1 for the WD Red drives, so far 3.5" w/
2tb and 4tb
>>> drives, ZERO issues. I've had good luck with HGST NAS drives
too.
>>> Unfortunately, that will come to an end soon (With WD owning HGST).
>>
>> Most servers can fit only 2.5" disks these days.  I keep wondering
what
>> everyone is doing about storage.
>
> Sorry, that depends 100% on what you *order*. We tell our resellers that
> we want 3.5" drives, that's what we get. All the vendors,
intluding Dell,
> and the smaller ones, online you can configure what you want, to price it
> out, and they *all* offer 3.5" drives.
>
> The only 2.5" drives that we're ok with getting are the two
internal SSD's
> for RAID 1 for the o/s, and nothing else.
>
> You may not be talking to the right sales folks.
That only goes when you buy new.  Look at what you can get used, and you?ll
see that there?s basically nothing that fits 3.5" drives.

John R Pierce wrote:
> On 11/2/2017 9:21 AM, hw wrote:
>> Richard Zimmerman wrote:
>>> hw wrote:
>>>> Next question: you want RAID, how much storage do you need?
Will 4 or 8 3.5" drives be enough (DO NOT GET crappy 2.5" drives -
they're *much* more expensive than the 3.5" drives, and >smaller
disk space. For the price of a 1TB 2.5", I can get at least a 4TB WD Red.
>>>
>>> I will second Marks comments here. Yes, 2.5" drive enterprise
drives have been an issue. +1 for the WD Red drives, so far 3.5" w/ 2tb and
4tb drives, ZERO issues. I've had good luck with HGST NAS drives too.
Unfortunately, that will come to an end soon (With WD owning HGST).
>>
>> Most servers can fit only 2.5" disks these days.  I keep wondering
what
>> everyone is doing about storage.
>
>
> 2.5" SAS drives spinning at 10k and 15k RPM are the performance
solution for online storage, like databases and so forth.   also make more sense
for large arrays of SSDs, as they don't even come in 3.5".    With
2.5" you can pack more disks per U (24-25 2.5" per 2U face, vs 12
3.5" max per 2U)... more disks == more IOPS.
That?s not for storage because it?s so expensive that you can only use it
for the limited amounts of data that actually benefit from, or require,
the advantage in performance.  For this application, it makes perfectly
sense.
> 3.5" SATA drives spinning at 5400 and 7200 rpm are the choice for
large capacity bulk 'nearline' storage which is typically sequentially
written once
Why would you write them only once?  Where are you storing your data when you
do that?