SATA RAID 5 hardware question

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

I download Samsung's product guide, and they are all desktop models. That
would be fine for a home or small business server, they aren't active 24*7.

The Raptor is the only enterprise IDE drive, with a 5 year warranty.

For lessor demands, look at Maxtor's Maxline III. It states
"... (MTTF) of 1 million hours* for low I/O duty cycle midline and nearline
applications."

I would also consider whether the controller supports the same type of command
queuing as the drive.

"--oZ--" <me@nospam.net> wrote in message news:2m1s3vFhfs32U1@uni-berlin.de...
> I want to set up a RAID 5 array, probably using the Highpoint 1640 SATA
> RAID controller and Samsung SP1614C drives:
>
>
http://www.samsung.com/Products/Ha [...] 14C_sp.htm
>
> http://www.highpoint-tech.com/USA/rr1640.htm
>
> I have tried to get information from samsung, however they seem very
> uncommunicative. My question is really are these drives rated for 24/7
> usage? What lifespan could I expect out of them if I subject them to
> such usage?
>

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

--oZ-- wrote:

> I want to set up a RAID 5 array, probably using the Highpoint 1640 SATA
> RAID controller and Samsung SP1614C drives:
>
>
http://www.samsung.com/Products/Ha [...] 14C_sp.htm
>
> http://www.highpoint-tech.com/USA/rr1640.htm
>
> I have tried to get information from samsung, however they seem very
> uncommunicative. My question is really are these drives rated for 24/7
> usage? What lifespan could I expect out of them if I subject them to
> such usage?
>
> Also does anyone have any experience of this drive controller
> combination and are there any problems? The reason for choosing these
> drives is the low noise level.

You don't say what you're trying to accomplish. In general a drive with
clean power and adequate cooling will run until the bearings wear out or a
defective component fails, and that's true regardless of any "rating". If
you're talking about a mission-critical corporate server where downtime
costs hundreds or thousands of dollars a minute then go with Cheetahs and
lots of them on redundant arrays on redundant servers. If you're talking
about housing your video collection then any current production drive
should work fine for you as long as you give it clean power and plenty of
airflow, and if you configure it RAID 5 with a hot spare then drive failure
when it happens (and those mission-critical corporate systems are designed
so that a drive is a consumable--they're made for "when it fails" not "if
it fails" ) should be at worst a minor annoyance for you.

> Thanks

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@graffiti.net> wrote in message
news:cdgsbd02r74@enews2.newsguy.com...
> I download Samsung's product guide, and they are all desktop models. That
> would be fine for a home or small business server, they aren't active
24*7.
>
> The Raptor is the only enterprise IDE drive, with a 5 year warranty.
>
> For lessor demands, look at Maxtor's Maxline III. It states
> "... (MTTF) of 1 million hours* for low I/O duty cycle midline and
nearline
> applications."
>
> I would also consider whether the controller supports the same type of
command
> queuing as the drive.

Is that relevant yet? Has anyone fully implemented any ATA command queuing
yet?

> "--oZ--" <me@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:2m1s3vFhfs32U1@uni-berlin.de...
> > I want to set up a RAID 5 array, probably using the Highpoint 1640 SATA
> > RAID controller and Samsung SP1614C drives:
> >
> >
>
http://www.samsung.com/Products/Ha [...] 14C_sp.htm
> >
> > http://www.highpoint-tech.com/USA/rr1640.htm
> >
> > I have tried to get information from samsung, however they seem very
> > uncommunicative. My question is really are these drives rated for 24/7
> > usage? What lifespan could I expect out of them if I subject them to
> > such usage?
> >
>

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

It may be odd to you, however it is critical for the intended purpose of
the array. As for the fans... you can get quiet ones.

Thanks for your opinion of the drive's capabilities.

Ron Reaugh wrote:

> "--oZ--" <me@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:2m2h3pFi25vaU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
>>Thanks, I am aware of the Raptors but they don't have the capacity I
>>need per unit.
>>
>>I suppose I should make my requirements clear. They drives would be
>>powered on 24/7 but would only have active I/O for 4-8 hours per day.
>>Would standard desktop drives be able to handle this?
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>>The Raptors do not have a sufficient capacity and I already ruled out
>>Maxtor drives because of the noise levels. Although I haven't looked at
>>the Maxline III yet.
>
>
> You seem to be defining an odd feature set for RAID 5("noise level" ). What
> about the fan noise in your array box?
>
>

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@graffiti.net> wrote in message
news:cdhhqq019a9@enews4.newsguy.com...
> "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:UAXKc.113194$OB3.85126@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > > I would also consider whether the controller supports the same type of
> > command
> > > queuing as the drive.
> >
> > Is that relevant yet? Has anyone fully implemented any ATA command
queuing
> > yet?
> >
> The Intel 9xx chipsets support native command queuing. SiI announced the
3124
> chip a year ago, there may be a server board with it.

Yes, I saw those HW announcements. Now are there any OS drivers that
support it yet?

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 23:11:07 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
<ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>
>"Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@graffiti.net> wrote in message
>news:cdhhqq019a9@enews4.newsguy.com...
>> "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>> news:UAXKc.113194$OB3.85126@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> >
>> > > I would also consider whether the controller supports the same type of
>> > command
>> > > queuing as the drive.
>> >
>> > Is that relevant yet? Has anyone fully implemented any ATA command
>queuing
>> > yet?
>> >
>> The Intel 9xx chipsets support native command queuing. SiI announced the
>3124
>> chip a year ago, there may be a server board with it.
>
>Yes, I saw those HW announcements. Now are there any OS drivers that
>support it yet?

TCQ is supported on some SATA drivers. But NCQ is only part of SATAII
afaik.

But there is an interesting article on storagereview about the usage
of raid arrays and the impact of TCQ on desktops. It seems that TCQ is
actually bad for performance with typical desktop use (because of the
overhead) and is only usefull on servers where the queues are much
longer.

It actually seems that the effect is similar with NCQ as is used by
SCSI drives.

Reading how noice is an issue I don't suspect that this raid5 array
will be used in a server environment where we can expect sufficiently
long queues that TCQ or NCQ is beneficial.

Marc

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

> If it really is for a desktop, RAID 5 is a poor choice.

I'd also wonder about the performance of a Highpoint card under RAID-5
for desktop use, wouldn't RAID-10 be a better choice re stripe+mirroring?
Since it is SATA, the RAID-1 part is good for when the SATA connector
breaks on the drive, which quite a few people seem to have achieved.

NCQ is supported by Barracuda 7200.7, re-ordering commands so as
to optimise seek overhead - which for a lot of small files is significant.
--
Dorothy Bradbury

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

--oZ-- wrote:

> Thanks for all thoughts expressed in this thread.
>
> To make the matter clearer.... the purpose of the array will be to hold
> media files. i.e. write once, read lots with fairly large files 3 -> 800
> Mb. As such RAID 5 suites my purpose and will also give the advantage of
> redundancy whilst maximising storage space.
>
> Noise is an issue for this purpose due to the placement of the
> array/server in a home environment. The seagate disks seem to be capable
> of low noise operation however they also have a performance mode at
> which the noise levels will become unacceptable. The samsung disks do
> not seem to share this design.

Itt's really not a "design" issue per se. Seagate provides two different
firmware programs, one providing high head acceleration and slightly
greater noise, one lower acceleration and less noise. Samsung provides a
compromise. FWIW, it's my understanding that the Seagate PATA drives are
normally set "quiet" and the SATA drives are set "performance"--at one time
there was a utility from Seagate that allowed that to be changed by the
user, but there seems to have been some litigation that has forced them to
quit making the acoustic mode field-adjustable.

> Performance is an issue but not the most important aspect of the array.
>
> Returning to my original vague query (apologies) I take it that most
> people agree that standerd desktop drives be they seagate, maxtor, wd or
> samsung could handle 4-8hrs i/o use per day whilst powered up 24/7?

Sure. I've had Samsungs running in my Tivo for, well, I don't recall how
long but it's been a while. The Tivo almoste never stops writing--it
always keeps 30 minutes of the current channel.

Personally I stick the servers in the basement away from everything and let
them make as much noise as they please.

> With adequate cooling, consistent power etc etc...
>
> Thanks
>
> Dorothy Bradbury wrote:
>>>If it really is for a desktop, RAID 5 is a poor choice.
>>
>>
>> I'd also wonder about the performance of a Highpoint card under RAID-5
>> for desktop use, wouldn't RAID-10 be a better choice re stripe+mirroring?
>> Since it is SATA, the RAID-1 part is good for when the SATA connector
>> breaks on the drive, which quite a few people seem to have achieved.
>>
>> NCQ is supported by Barracuda 7200.7, re-ordering commands so as
>> to optimise seek overhead - which for a lot of small files is
>> significant.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that raid 5 would be easier on drives
than using just 1 drive. For example, if you stripe 1GB across 4 drives,
only 250MB gets written to each drive (plus parity data). So, the drives
would seem to be used even less than 1 big drive. Its just a thought I have
had for a while, like I say it could be incorrect.

--Dan

"--oZ--" <me@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:2m7edgFh1vj2U1@uni-berlin.de...
> Thanks for all thoughts expressed in this thread.
> Returning to my original vague query (apologies) I take it that most
> people agree that standerd desktop drives be they seagate, maxtor, wd or
> samsung could handle 4-8hrs i/o use per day whilst powered up 24/7?
>
> With adequate cooling, consistent power etc etc...
>
> Thanks