New server RAID options
Tags:
- NAS / RAID
- Configuration
-
Business Computing
-
Servers
Last response: in Business Computing
bgmoss28
September 8, 2014 7:51:49 PM
I need some help deciding on a RAID configuration for a new server. I work for an independent pharmacy and as the only member of the IT team, I'm spread a little thin. The server I am getting is supplied by our pharmacy software vendor so I don't have much leeway as far as configuration goes. I do have a choice for our RAID setup but I need some help. Being a pharmacy, if our server isn't up, we don't make money and we can lose customers. Basically the server cannot go down. Ever. The RAID setups I'm considering are 1, 5 & 10 all with a hot spare. I'm not a fan of 5 and have pretty much ruled that out so it's between 1 & 10. I would prefer 10 but it's an extra grand over 1 and I have to make this as budget-friendly as possible without underbuying.
Server - ProLiant ML310e G8
Xenon E3-1240 v2 @ 3.4 GHz
460W Hot Swap Power Supply
16 GB DDR3 1600
HDD - 600 GB 6G SAS 10k rpm 2.5 inch, quantity (3 or 5) to be determined by RAID
I am expecting our demand to go up in the next few years but I can't quantify it. Our software company doesn't generally allow access to the OS so I can't even speak to our current demand (that will change with the new one).
So the question - is RAID 10 worth the extra money?
Server - ProLiant ML310e G8
Xenon E3-1240 v2 @ 3.4 GHz
460W Hot Swap Power Supply
16 GB DDR3 1600
HDD - 600 GB 6G SAS 10k rpm 2.5 inch, quantity (3 or 5) to be determined by RAID
I am expecting our demand to go up in the next few years but I can't quantify it. Our software company doesn't generally allow access to the OS so I can't even speak to our current demand (that will change with the new one).
So the question - is RAID 10 worth the extra money?
More about : server raid options
-
Reply to bgmoss28
drtweak
September 8, 2014 8:07:04 PM
Ah HP Yuck...That just my opinion though.
But an extra grand for two hard drives? Thats outrageous in my opinion. A RAID 10 with hot spare would be best. You get the best of both worlds on Read and Write. But if its an extra 1000 bucks then no its not worth it. And no access to OS?? Why even have an IT for a server you can't even access (Not saying they don't need ya but you know what i mean). Me i'm IT for a few dozen companies but we run all Dell servers which are just way better looking, easier to use, and their server software is great as well, but then I've only delt with a HP server once.
But again if its an extra grand you'd be better off just getting bigger hard drives for a RAID 1 + HS vs smaller drives in a RAID 10 + HS
Edited for language.
But an extra grand for two hard drives? Thats outrageous in my opinion. A RAID 10 with hot spare would be best. You get the best of both worlds on Read and Write. But if its an extra 1000 bucks then no its not worth it. And no access to OS?? Why even have an IT for a server you can't even access (Not saying they don't need ya but you know what i mean). Me i'm IT for a few dozen companies but we run all Dell servers which are just way better looking, easier to use, and their server software is great as well, but then I've only delt with a HP server once.
But again if its an extra grand you'd be better off just getting bigger hard drives for a RAID 1 + HS vs smaller drives in a RAID 10 + HS
Edited for language.
-
Reply to drtweak
m
0
l
bgmoss28
September 8, 2014 9:09:31 PM
drtweak said:
Ah HP Yuck...That just my opinion though. But an extra grand for two hard drives? Thats outrageous in my opinion. A RAID 10 with hot spare would be best. You get the best of both worlds on Read and Write. But if its an extra 1000 bucks then no its not worth it. And no access to OS?? Why even have an IT for a server you can't even access (Not saying they don't need ya but you know what i mean). Me i'm IT for a few dozen companies but we run all Dell servers which are just way better looking, easier to use, and their server software is great as well, but then I've only delt with a HP server once.
But again if its an extra grand you'd be better off just getting bigger hard drives for a RAID 1 + HS vs smaller drives in a RAID 10 + HS
Thanks for the input and the quick response. Believe me, even without server management I have more than enough work to keep me out of trouble. I will have access to the new server though, and I'm hoping to use it more for what it was designed to do (there will be questions on that once I get it I'm sure). The old one is pretty much a glorified desktop with RDPs for access. I don't have a choice in drive size so if I go with RAID 1 I'm stuck with 600GB. If I had my way, I'd get exactly what I want from Dell and load the SW on it but that's not an option.
Since this server is the backbone of our business and having it down for a day would cost thousands in business, I can justify the extra $$ if it means a more reliable system. You say the 1000 isn't worth it - what am I sacrificing in fault tolerance by going with RAID 1? R/W speed is a important, but very much secondary to reliability. Does this change your opinion?
-
Reply to bgmoss28
m
0
l
Related resources
- Options for adding storage to existing RAID10 on server - Forum
- New home server build, need raid card advice! - Forum
- Which RAID array for new Server 2012 R2 build? - Forum
- New Home Server motherboard raid controller VS Controller card. - Forum
- New Build: 3ware controller for RAID 5 vs. other options - Forum
Best solution
drtweak
September 8, 2014 10:31:27 PM
Fault Tolerance will pretty much be the same for the most part but a RAID 10 can handle a two drive failure in your case (One in each RAID 1) but if both drives in a RAID 1 Fail then your screwed, but since you have a Hot Spare you should be able to recover from any single drive failure.
But besides that and also having better Write speeds (RAID 0) there isn't much difference.
If you need more than 100 MBps write then yea go with the RAID 10. should get 200-250 depending on the kind of drives they use. Had a client with a Dell server, setup a new RAID 5 for storage with 3 WD Reds - slow as hell. Bought a 4th drive, made it a RAID 10 was getting 200+ R/W on them. Now keep in mind as far as regular Hard Drives go there isn't much of a speed different between 3Gbps and 6Gbps drives. hard drive have still yet to max out the bandwith of Sata 3Gbps but the fact that they are 10k might make them a bit faster but its not all about RPM anymore but also Platter Denisity. A 4 TB drive 7200 rpm will out perform a 300 GB 10k drive and probably even a 15k drive. But again the RAID 1 will get you the Read Speed but a RAID 0 will get you the Write Speed so a RAID 10 gives you best of both worlds.
Up to you just in my opinion 1k for an extra two 600GB 10k drives is just outrageous. They better come with 5 year warranties
But besides that and also having better Write speeds (RAID 0) there isn't much difference.
If you need more than 100 MBps write then yea go with the RAID 10. should get 200-250 depending on the kind of drives they use. Had a client with a Dell server, setup a new RAID 5 for storage with 3 WD Reds - slow as hell. Bought a 4th drive, made it a RAID 10 was getting 200+ R/W on them. Now keep in mind as far as regular Hard Drives go there isn't much of a speed different between 3Gbps and 6Gbps drives. hard drive have still yet to max out the bandwith of Sata 3Gbps but the fact that they are 10k might make them a bit faster but its not all about RPM anymore but also Platter Denisity. A 4 TB drive 7200 rpm will out perform a 300 GB 10k drive and probably even a 15k drive. But again the RAID 1 will get you the Read Speed but a RAID 0 will get you the Write Speed so a RAID 10 gives you best of both worlds.
Up to you just in my opinion 1k for an extra two 600GB 10k drives is just outrageous. They better come with 5 year warranties
-
Reply to drtweak
Share
bgmoss28
September 9, 2014 12:41:05 AM
drtweak said:
Fault Tolerance will pretty much be the same for the most part but a RAID 10 can handle a two drive failure in your case (One in each RAID 1) but if both drives in a RAID 1 Fail then your screwed, but since you have a Hot Spare you should be able to recover from any single drive failure. But besides that and also having better Write speeds (RAID 0) there isn't much difference.
If you need more than 100 MBps write then yea go with the RAID 10. should get 200-250 depending on the kind of drives they use. Had a client with a Dell server, setup a new RAID 5 for storage with 3 WD Reds - slow as hell. Bought a 4th drive, made it a RAID 10 was getting 200+ R/W on them. Now keep in mind as far as regular Hard Drives go there isn't much of a speed different between 3Gbps and 6Gbps drives. hard drive have still yet to max out the bandwith of Sata 3Gbps but the fact that they are 10k might make them a bit faster but its not all about RPM anymore but also Platter Denisity. A 4 TB drive 7200 rpm will out perform a 300 GB 10k drive and probably even a 15k drive. But again the RAID 1 will get you the Read Speed but a RAID 0 will get you the Write Speed so a RAID 10 gives you best of both worlds.
Up to you just in my opinion 1k for an extra two 600GB 10k drives is just outrageous. They better come with 5 year warranties
Well drtweak, you have given me a lot to think about. I totally agree that 1k is a touch on the high side... They do happen to come with a 5 yr, but still. The R/W info is great. I think I have the spec sheet on our current server somewhere (72 GB HDD). I don't know what our R/W is now, but I can tell it's struggling on a busy day or when I'm running a large report. I'm going to look into buying my own drives - I can't get my mind around $475 for 600 GB. The enclosure might be an issue and our SW company will be an issue but it's worth the 2k to find out!
Thanks again for all your help!
-
Reply to bgmoss28
m
0
l
Why no RAID 5?
Do you need fast write speeds? How many clients will be hitting the server? Most independent pharmacies I've seen only have 3-5 computers. That shouldn't make a huge need for writes. More so if/when all the do is update patient records. I personally would go with RAID 5 or 6. Any chance you can buy a basic server and add the drives yourself, changing the array if need be? That way you aren't spending a grand on disks?
Do you need fast write speeds? How many clients will be hitting the server? Most independent pharmacies I've seen only have 3-5 computers. That shouldn't make a huge need for writes. More so if/when all the do is update patient records. I personally would go with RAID 5 or 6. Any chance you can buy a basic server and add the drives yourself, changing the array if need be? That way you aren't spending a grand on disks?
-
Reply to 4745454b
m
0
l
bgmoss28
September 9, 2014 1:55:05 AM
4745454b said:
Why no RAID 5? Do you need fast write speeds? How many clients will be hitting the server? Most independent pharmacies I've seen only have 3-5 computers. That shouldn't make a huge need for writes. More so if/when all the do is update patient records. I personally would go with RAID 5 or 6. Any chance you can buy a basic server and add the drives yourself, changing the array if need be? That way you aren't spending a grand on disks?
We have 8 terminals plus the server and 3 or 4 outside services active at the same time depending on how the day is going. Especially on Mondays, we have a ton of data coming in. We scan all of the hard copies of the prescriptions into our system which most independents don't do. Many of our prescriptions come electronically now which is really cool. We also have a workflow system where barcodes on the prescription label are scanned against the stock bottle when the pills are counted, and again when the pharmacist checks it. When a customer picks up that prescription, our pharmacy system integrates with our POS system and captures their signature so we know exactly when that prescription was picked up. All very cool, but also very expensive, so much so that only higher volume stores can afford it. Because of all that, we have an unusually high amount of data coming in compared to the average independent pharmacy.
Our current server is set up for RAID 5. We've had 2 drives fail in its lifespan and, especially with the last one, I was concerned with the stress the rebuild was putting on the others. One of the reasons I didn't bring up 6 is because we are lucky to be an unusually large independent and I have plans to grow. While I admit our current system isn't exactly state of the art, there is a noticeable lag on writes. If our new system was set up that way, it would be faster simply because of better technology, but with an eternally miniscule IT budget I have to make sure that it will last us 7-8 years and still be adequate. I'm poking around now to see if I can get them cheaper but I don't think I'm going to have much success. To accommodate all the pharmacies with no IT staff (which is most of them) our software company installs the HW and SW we need, tests it for a couple of weeks (seems a bit excessive) and then ships it to us ready to transfer the data. I would be perfectly happy doing all that myself and saving their $1500 configuration fee. I know what you're thinking and I agree 100%.
I'm glad you popped in though. It never crossed my mind to have them send me the components that don't come standard with the system. I can do just as good a job for $1500 less and 4 weeks quicker. They do require one of two servers, but I could even order it from HP. Our SW company might get a bit prickly in terms of HW support but I maintain about 20 computers there and another 10 plus a server for my uncle so I doubt this would be a problem.
I tend to ramble when I'm tired and I think we crossed that line a while ago. Thanks for reading and thanks for the ideas!
-
Reply to bgmoss28
m
0
l
drtweak
September 9, 2014 12:43:57 PM
Yea I thought of you possible adding in your own hardware as well but the thing is you have to delete the old array and make a new one BUT if you have the right tools is very easy. Make a backup of it (Perferably clone the whole system to another single drive, boot off that drive to make sure the clone was good first!), then add the extra drives, delete the old arrary, make a new array, clone the drive back over. With it fresh with no data it shouldn't take too long. a few hours maybe. Just risking possibly screwing it up even more can be bit of an issue, but you definatly seem to know what you are doing. Would be much cheaper to by some 600 GB 15k SAS Drives or even go out and buy bigger ones to replace the 600 GB (1TB SAS seagate constellation drives 7200 RPM run about a 100 bucks each. Could easily get 10 drives for the extra grand they are asking for!). had a client who we setup a RAID 10 with across 4 WD Reds 7200 RPM. They were seeing 250 average MB Read and Write on that RAID 10 as i said in a previous post. So that is also an option if you're up for the task. Not sure how the SW Company would like that but still. The seagate drives come with 5 years warranties.
But RAID 5 has a lot of overhead to it. More so than a RAID 0, 1, or 10. A RAID 6, 50 60 has even more. And again RAID 10 can lose a drive in EVERY RAID 1 and still be fine and its faster than a RAID 5.
They need to make RAIDs like 51 and 61 as well vs 50 and 60. Having RAID 1 of a RAID 5 or 6 gives you a really good peace of mind on redundancy. Can always do two RAID 5's and then a software RAID 1 but its not as fast lol. But yea i'm just rambling here as well lol.
But RAID 5 has a lot of overhead to it. More so than a RAID 0, 1, or 10. A RAID 6, 50 60 has even more. And again RAID 10 can lose a drive in EVERY RAID 1 and still be fine and its faster than a RAID 5.
They need to make RAIDs like 51 and 61 as well vs 50 and 60. Having RAID 1 of a RAID 5 or 6 gives you a really good peace of mind on redundancy. Can always do two RAID 5's and then a software RAID 1 but its not as fast lol. But yea i'm just rambling here as well lol.
-
Reply to drtweak
m
0
l
bgmoss28
September 16, 2014 6:48:34 PM
drtweak said:
Yea I thought of you possible adding in your own hardware as well but the thing is you have to delete the old array and make a new one BUT if you have the right tools is very easy. Make a backup of it (Perferably clone the whole system to another single drive, boot off that drive to make sure the clone was good first!), then add the extra drives, delete the old arrary, make a new array, clone the drive back over. With it fresh with no data it shouldn't take too long. a few hours maybe. Just risking possibly screwing it up even more can be bit of an issue, but you definatly seem to know what you are doing. Would be much cheaper to by some 600 GB 15k SAS Drives or even go out and buy bigger ones to replace the 600 GB (1TB SAS seagate constellation drives 7200 RPM run about a 100 bucks each. Could easily get 10 drives for the extra grand they are asking for!). had a client who we setup a RAID 10 with across 4 WD Reds 7200 RPM. They were seeing 250 average MB Read and Write on that RAID 10 as i said in a previous post. So that is also an option if you're up for the task. Not sure how the SW Company would like that but still. The seagate drives come with 5 years warranties. But RAID 5 has a lot of overhead to it. More so than a RAID 0, 1, or 10. A RAID 6, 50 60 has even more. And again RAID 10 can lose a drive in EVERY RAID 1 and still be fine and its faster than a RAID 5.
They need to make RAIDs like 51 and 61 as well vs 50 and 60. Having RAID 1 of a RAID 5 or 6 gives you a really good peace of mind on redundancy. Can always do two RAID 5's and then a software RAID 1 but its not as fast lol. But yea i'm just rambling here as well lol.
So, for the sake of argument, what is preventing a RAID 51 or 61 from being implemented? Yeah, it would double your HDD costs, but the array would be incredibly resilient.
On a slightly different topic, I had a RAID 0 setup in my laptop fail. That sucked. I got that laptop before I had any experience with RAID so 1TB sounded better than 500GB. Obviously, reconstructing the drive was a pain in the butt and couldn't retrieve all of my data. It seems that there should be a better way of maximizing storage while still maintaining some sort of integrity. The market seems to be moving away from portable high capacity setups, but personally, I'd rather have all of my data with me rather than in the cloud, particularly considering all of the recent snooping scandals. Call me a luddite, but I've had some doubts about the security of cloud computing from the onset and I'm not convinced that the security issues surrounding the cloud will be solved in the near future. Thoughts?
-
Reply to bgmoss28
m
0
l
RAID0, or AID0 as I call it is stupid due to the lack of redundancy. There was a time for it maybe in the past, but because we have SSDs and better forms of RAID with R included there isn't a point in running AID0 these days. If the 500MB+ write speeds found in current SSDs isn't fast enough for you, there are PCIe solutions that are faster. And I would rather run RAID 5 and be able to recover from a drive loss then run AID0 and hope for the best while backing up every night.
Why no 51 or 61? Probably because as you said it would double your drive costs, and it really isn't needed. Why copy the array when you can recover from multiple drives failing with RAID6? Raid is a way to recover from failing drives. And with RAID5 or 6 you don't have to worry about that.
Why no 51 or 61? Probably because as you said it would double your drive costs, and it really isn't needed. Why copy the array when you can recover from multiple drives failing with RAID6? Raid is a way to recover from failing drives. And with RAID5 or 6 you don't have to worry about that.
-
Reply to 4745454b
m
0
l
drtweak
September 16, 2014 9:39:37 PM
bgmoss28 said:
drtweak said:
Yea I thought of you possible adding in your own hardware as well but the thing is you have to delete the old array and make a new one BUT if you have the right tools is very easy. Make a backup of it (Perferably clone the whole system to another single drive, boot off that drive to make sure the clone was good first!), then add the extra drives, delete the old arrary, make a new array, clone the drive back over. With it fresh with no data it shouldn't take too long. a few hours maybe. Just risking possibly screwing it up even more can be bit of an issue, but you definatly seem to know what you are doing. Would be much cheaper to by some 600 GB 15k SAS Drives or even go out and buy bigger ones to replace the 600 GB (1TB SAS seagate constellation drives 7200 RPM run about a 100 bucks each. Could easily get 10 drives for the extra grand they are asking for!). had a client who we setup a RAID 10 with across 4 WD Reds 7200 RPM. They were seeing 250 average MB Read and Write on that RAID 10 as i said in a previous post. So that is also an option if you're up for the task. Not sure how the SW Company would like that but still. The seagate drives come with 5 years warranties. But RAID 5 has a lot of overhead to it. More so than a RAID 0, 1, or 10. A RAID 6, 50 60 has even more. And again RAID 10 can lose a drive in EVERY RAID 1 and still be fine and its faster than a RAID 5.
They need to make RAIDs like 51 and 61 as well vs 50 and 60. Having RAID 1 of a RAID 5 or 6 gives you a really good peace of mind on redundancy. Can always do two RAID 5's and then a software RAID 1 but its not as fast lol. But yea i'm just rambling here as well lol.
So, for the sake of argument, what is preventing a RAID 51 or 61 from being implemented? Yeah, it would double your HDD costs, but the array would be incredibly resilient.
On a slightly different topic, I had a RAID 0 setup in my laptop fail. That sucked. I got that laptop before I had any experience with RAID so 1TB sounded better than 500GB. Obviously, reconstructing the drive was a pain in the butt and couldn't retrieve all of my data. It seems that there should be a better way of maximizing storage while still maintaining some sort of integrity. The market seems to be moving away from portable high capacity setups, but personally, I'd rather have all of my data with me rather than in the cloud, particularly considering all of the recent snooping scandals. Call me a luddite, but I've had some doubts about the security of cloud computing from the onset and I'm not convinced that the security issues surrounding the cloud will be solved in the near future. Thoughts?
Well first RAID Card's don't do RAID 51 and 61 though hardware. You would have to setup two RAID 5/6's and then do a software RAID 1 of the two but yes it would double your cost for hard drives but the redundancy of that RAID would be pretty superior. There is also RAID 110 which is rarely heard of and the top RAID 1 has to be a software RAID,.
-
Reply to drtweak
m
0
l
2Be_or_Not2Be
September 19, 2014 11:28:39 AM
The most cost-effective & resilient solution is RAID 5 or RAID-6. I have run many RAID-5/6 arrays w/o a problem; however, I don't run consumer drives like a WD Red. If you want higher disk I/O, use SSDs in your RAID-5/6 array. When you have a dedicated RAID controller (like a Dell PERC), then you really don't have controller overhead to worry about (well, until you saturate it). If you use SSDs, then you really won't have write-performance issues either. A simple array of 4 SSDs in a RAID-5 will blow away other much more expensive, multi-drive spinning-disk array.
Separately, for fault-tolerance, you should also get redundant power supplies. Of all the failures I've had in servers, hard drives were number one, and power supplies were number 2.
Edit: Here's a link to some real-world testing on SSDs in a RAID-5 array for SQL Server.
Separately, for fault-tolerance, you should also get redundant power supplies. Of all the failures I've had in servers, hard drives were number one, and power supplies were number 2.
Edit: Here's a link to some real-world testing on SSDs in a RAID-5 array for SQL Server.
-
Reply to 2Be_or_Not2Be
m
0
l
drtweak
September 19, 2014 1:00:33 PM
2Be_or_Not2Be said:
The most cost-effective & resilient solution is RAID 5 or RAID-6. I have run many RAID-5/6 arrays w/o a problem; however, I don't run consumer drives like a WD Red. If you want higher disk I/O, use SSDs in your RAID-5/6 array. When you have a dedicated RAID controller (like a Dell PERC), then you really don't have controller overhead to worry about (well, until you saturate it). If you use SSDs, then you really won't have write-performance issues either. A simple array of 4 SSDs in a RAID-5 will blow away other much more expensive, multi-drive spinning-disk array.Separately, for fault-tolerance, you should also get redundant power supplies. Of all the failures I've had in servers, hard drives were number one, and power supplies were number 2.
Edit: Here's a link to some real-world testing on SSDs in a RAID-5 array for SQL Server.
Agreed on the Power Supply issue. Not sure if that one has it or not. I'm sure you have it on a UPS as well.
-
Reply to drtweak
m
0
l
Casper42
September 27, 2014 1:52:55 PM
I don't think some of the people in here have ever worked on a real server, let alone the one you are proposing.
the ML310e Gen8 is a relatively low power (CPU wise) server but the model you seem to be getting will be coming with a Smart Array P420 RAID Controller.
How do I know this? The ML310e Gen8 only supports SATA drives without an additional RAID card.
Now, that being said you have a RAID engine in that machine that is good for over 300,000 IOPs when paired with SSDs. So anyone telling you your RAID 5 will be "slow" doesn't really understand the hardware you are dealing with.
Sure it will be slightly slower than RAID10, but its not going to be crazy slower since you are dealing with spinning disks anyway (as opposed to SSDs).
Now, the P420 can, but not always, also come with either 1GB or 2GB of FBWC which is Flash Backed Write Cache.
This is 1GB or 2GB of RAM that can be used as a write buffer, so incoming writes are written to memory at very high speed and then flushed to the spinning disks in the background.
The Flash Backed part is because there is an included SuperCap (Capacitor) that will keep the Array Controller awake, in case of a sudden power failure, long enough to take any remaining Write operations stored in memory and back them up to some onboard NAND (think high end thumb drive). It then checks the CRC on both sides to make sure the data written matches what is in RAM, and then it shuts itself down until power is restored. Upon power being restored, the data is retrieved from NAND back to RAM and then flushed to the disks, usually before the OS has even booted back up.
As for the extra Grand, 600GB 10K SAS drives for Gen8, even on HP's own site are $435 each.
Realistically you can buy them cheaper elsewhere and there is margin (profit) built into these prices so don't be afraid to haggle with whomever is supplying the hardware.
You can also, assuming you have the 1GB/2GB FBWC module on the P420, even add more drives later and do an online conversion from a RAID1 to a RAID10 or RAID5/6 with no Downtime. This used to be a paid feature but either earlier this year or maybe end of last year HP put almost all the Smart Array Advanced Pack features into the base product with a simple firmware update. Assuming your server has not been on a shelf for a year, you will have these features from day 1.
Now lets talk about RAID10 vs RAID5.
You don't get to pick which drives die when.
So people telling you RAID10 is "more redundant" than RAID5 are flat out wrong.
Sure you might get lucky and lose 2 drives on a RAID 10 and survive, but then again, you might not.
You go with RAID10 for extra Write Speed, not for extra redundancy.
You go with RAID6 over RAID5 for extra Redundancy.
You go with RAID1 ADG on that P420 for Crazy redundancy (RAID1 but with 3 copies instead of 2)
And as far as the power supplies go, the 460W Hot Swap means it also supports redundancy.
Not sure if the software vendor is including the redundant PSU, but you could always buy one after the fact.
This means if you have 2 in there, you can have 1 fail and the server keeps right on running.
Speaking of running, the Server also comes with an iLO4 Remote Access port.
If you can get a login for this, you can remotely control and check the hardware health of the server from any Desktop/Laptop or even Phone/Tablet (there is an iLO Android/iOS app now).
One of the features of the iLO4 is you can connect it to HP's Insight Online and if one of your parts dies, it will automatically open a support case and upload the information to HP who will then call you to arrange the replacement parts to be shipped out or installed by a local field tech if its more complicated than a drive or PSU.
Here is the ML310e Gen8 QuickSpecs (the Spec Sheet and part numbers for any upgrades you might want)
http://h20195.www2.hp.com/v2/getpdf.aspx/c04128120.pdf?...
Based on the Specs you mentioned in the original post, it looks like they are just using this SmartBuy SKU:
686235-S01 - Full Specs on Page 19 of the PDF above.
BTW, Since I was an ass and called out the others here for NOT knowing much about this server, I should explain that I have the newer version, the ML310e Gen8 v2 sitting here next to me as my home file server.
Mine has the LFF (3.5") drive cage and does not have the redundant PSU config (its for home use).
But I have a P420 with 2GB FBWC running 6 x 2TB SAS drives in a RAID6.
I also added a 256GB Crucial M550 SSD and with the SmartCache license HP offers for the Smart Array, I am using that 256GB as a giant Read Cache on the array (since my drives are only 7200rpm).
I have the FBWC set to 100% write cache which means I have a 2GB write cache for incoming data and a 256GB read cache that is automatically taking the most used/read data from the 8TB array and caching it on the SSD for faster access. Might be overkill but I have been able to copy files to and from this machine at 1Gbps, maxing out the NIC connection, for 20 minutes sustained with no problems whatsoever.
Which is again why I think those telling you, with your 10K drives that are way faster than mine, that RAID5/6 is going to be "too slow" are just wrong.
Enjoy the new server
the ML310e Gen8 is a relatively low power (CPU wise) server but the model you seem to be getting will be coming with a Smart Array P420 RAID Controller.
How do I know this? The ML310e Gen8 only supports SATA drives without an additional RAID card.
Now, that being said you have a RAID engine in that machine that is good for over 300,000 IOPs when paired with SSDs. So anyone telling you your RAID 5 will be "slow" doesn't really understand the hardware you are dealing with.
Sure it will be slightly slower than RAID10, but its not going to be crazy slower since you are dealing with spinning disks anyway (as opposed to SSDs).
Now, the P420 can, but not always, also come with either 1GB or 2GB of FBWC which is Flash Backed Write Cache.
This is 1GB or 2GB of RAM that can be used as a write buffer, so incoming writes are written to memory at very high speed and then flushed to the spinning disks in the background.
The Flash Backed part is because there is an included SuperCap (Capacitor) that will keep the Array Controller awake, in case of a sudden power failure, long enough to take any remaining Write operations stored in memory and back them up to some onboard NAND (think high end thumb drive). It then checks the CRC on both sides to make sure the data written matches what is in RAM, and then it shuts itself down until power is restored. Upon power being restored, the data is retrieved from NAND back to RAM and then flushed to the disks, usually before the OS has even booted back up.
As for the extra Grand, 600GB 10K SAS drives for Gen8, even on HP's own site are $435 each.
Realistically you can buy them cheaper elsewhere and there is margin (profit) built into these prices so don't be afraid to haggle with whomever is supplying the hardware.
You can also, assuming you have the 1GB/2GB FBWC module on the P420, even add more drives later and do an online conversion from a RAID1 to a RAID10 or RAID5/6 with no Downtime. This used to be a paid feature but either earlier this year or maybe end of last year HP put almost all the Smart Array Advanced Pack features into the base product with a simple firmware update. Assuming your server has not been on a shelf for a year, you will have these features from day 1.
Now lets talk about RAID10 vs RAID5.
You don't get to pick which drives die when.
So people telling you RAID10 is "more redundant" than RAID5 are flat out wrong.
Sure you might get lucky and lose 2 drives on a RAID 10 and survive, but then again, you might not.
You go with RAID10 for extra Write Speed, not for extra redundancy.
You go with RAID6 over RAID5 for extra Redundancy.
You go with RAID1 ADG on that P420 for Crazy redundancy (RAID1 but with 3 copies instead of 2)
And as far as the power supplies go, the 460W Hot Swap means it also supports redundancy.
Not sure if the software vendor is including the redundant PSU, but you could always buy one after the fact.
This means if you have 2 in there, you can have 1 fail and the server keeps right on running.
Speaking of running, the Server also comes with an iLO4 Remote Access port.
If you can get a login for this, you can remotely control and check the hardware health of the server from any Desktop/Laptop or even Phone/Tablet (there is an iLO Android/iOS app now).
One of the features of the iLO4 is you can connect it to HP's Insight Online and if one of your parts dies, it will automatically open a support case and upload the information to HP who will then call you to arrange the replacement parts to be shipped out or installed by a local field tech if its more complicated than a drive or PSU.
Here is the ML310e Gen8 QuickSpecs (the Spec Sheet and part numbers for any upgrades you might want)
http://h20195.www2.hp.com/v2/getpdf.aspx/c04128120.pdf?...
Based on the Specs you mentioned in the original post, it looks like they are just using this SmartBuy SKU:
686235-S01 - Full Specs on Page 19 of the PDF above.
BTW, Since I was an ass and called out the others here for NOT knowing much about this server, I should explain that I have the newer version, the ML310e Gen8 v2 sitting here next to me as my home file server.
Mine has the LFF (3.5") drive cage and does not have the redundant PSU config (its for home use).
But I have a P420 with 2GB FBWC running 6 x 2TB SAS drives in a RAID6.
I also added a 256GB Crucial M550 SSD and with the SmartCache license HP offers for the Smart Array, I am using that 256GB as a giant Read Cache on the array (since my drives are only 7200rpm).
I have the FBWC set to 100% write cache which means I have a 2GB write cache for incoming data and a 256GB read cache that is automatically taking the most used/read data from the 8TB array and caching it on the SSD for faster access. Might be overkill but I have been able to copy files to and from this machine at 1Gbps, maxing out the NIC connection, for 20 minutes sustained with no problems whatsoever.
Which is again why I think those telling you, with your 10K drives that are way faster than mine, that RAID5/6 is going to be "too slow" are just wrong.
Enjoy the new server
-
Reply to Casper42
m
0
l
Related resources
- Cloning a Windows Server installation to a new RAID Forum
- New server array, need help with RAID card Forum
- New file server build...problems seeing RAID 5 in Windows XP Pro Forum
- New Server Config....Raid 5 on MOBO or Controller Forum
- New Server, Need HDD advice! 2 new HDD's in RAID1 Forum
- Server Raid Ultra 160 Won't Recognize New Drives. Help. Forum
- SolvedServer Raid Recommendation Forum
- SSD Caching options? RAID0 _as_ cache? Forum
- SolvedServer os options? Forum
- all raid options greyed out Forum
- SolvedNew PC for Parents, give me options Forum
- SolvedRAID 1, 5, Or 10 For Home Server PC? Forum
- SolvedNAS, RAID1, Media streaming [transcoding is a plus], Linux-XMBC server. Forum
- SolvedBuying new motherboard , need options please. Forum
- Sata RAID 5 PCI Card Options Forum
- More resources
Read discussions in other Business Computing categories
!