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

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

m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote:
> 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?
Does it matter?  19" cases are very well thought out, easy to work on
and fit nicely into the racks.  You can always use something else and
enjoy the disadvantages, but why would you.

On 11/3/2017 1:19 AM, hw wrote:
>> Y'know, I just had a thought: are there folks here who, when they
say
>> "server", are *not* thinking of rackmount servers?
>
> Does it matter?? 19" cases are very well thought out, easy to work on
> and fit nicely into the racks.? You can always use something else and
> enjoy the disadvantages, but why would you. 

rack servers tend to be rather noisy, if they are being used in a SMB or 
SOHO environment you're probably looking at a tower server.


-- 
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz