I am looking to install a 2003 Small Business Server for my home office. Does anyone do any consulting or willing to make a few bucks to help me get this thing up and running.
Thanks,
D
Thanks,
D
Server Help...
- Thread starter SweetD
- Start date
OP
OP
Server Specs
I have the Server already put together and SBS installed. I need help setting up the network correctly.
DELL PowerEdge SC1420
1 X 2.8GHz 800MHz XEON, Dual Capable
2 X 256MB DDR2 PC3200 ECC Registered RAM (I will be getting at least 2gb)
1 X 80GB SATA 7200rpm Hard Drive (Looking to do RAID 6 or 3)
1 X CD-ROM Drive
1 X Video Card: ATI Rage-XL PCI Card
I have the Server already put together and SBS installed. I need help setting up the network correctly.
DELL PowerEdge SC1420
1 X 2.8GHz 800MHz XEON, Dual Capable
2 X 256MB DDR2 PC3200 ECC Registered RAM (I will be getting at least 2gb)
1 X 80GB SATA 7200rpm Hard Drive (Looking to do RAID 6 or 3)
1 X CD-ROM Drive
1 X Video Card: ATI Rage-XL PCI Card
PortlandCardFan
Registered User
You are gonna need more disks for your RAID sets. At least 3 for RAID-3 and 4 for RAID-6.
Also do you have a backup solution?
Actually RAID-3 may be able to run on 2 disks but I need to check on that. I would personally go RAID-5 maybe RAID-6.
Also do you have a backup solution?
Actually RAID-3 may be able to run on 2 disks but I need to check on that. I would personally go RAID-5 maybe RAID-6.
PortlandCardFan
Registered User
You may want to google the RAID levels to get a better understanding
search using-
define: RAID 5
define: RAID 3
search using-
define: RAID 5
define: RAID 3
You have to have a minimum of 4 drives to run RAID - 6 but it slows down the writing speed of the server pretty severly because you are doing dual striping. If you have multiple hard drives it can handle the loss of 2 drives where RAID 5 can only handle one.
Instead of doing parity, have you thought of doing just mirroring with RAID 0+1 or 1+0? It's a hell of a lot cheaper...
Instead of doing parity, have you thought of doing just mirroring with RAID 0+1 or 1+0? It's a hell of a lot cheaper...
Last edited:
Also, you have to have an Array controller to run RAID. Does that model of Dell have one installed? I think their brand is called "PERC Controller" or something like that.
I don't have a lot of experience with SATA drives in servers, only SCSI
I don't have a lot of experience with SATA drives in servers, only SCSI
PortlandCardFan
Registered User
Ryanwb said:
Hey Ryan,
Isn't RAID 0+1 still 4 drives?
Mirror 2 sets of drives then stripe the two mirrored sets. Or were you referring to cost in a different manner?
Arrr... It is stripe drives then mirror!! That is why I do not do 0+1. I always for get the order!!! But when you HP Proliant servers it is just a click of the button. Stupid graphic interfaces
OP
OP
PortlandCardFan said:
Yes I know I need want to decide which one to use before buying the drives.
OP
OP
PortlandCardFan said:
I guess I could start with a little bit of background. My network will only have a max of 15 users. I will be running a lot of applications (CRM, SharePoint Portal, Live Communication, SQL (only for data of apps being used), maybe Exchange, and ISA on this server. I am having the webpage hosted. I would like to keep it down to one Server but am looking into a second server to split the load. My main goals are availability and speed. I am also looking at doing a NAS. Right now I in the conceptual stage so no final decisions have been made.
Chaz
observationist
Why RAID 3 or 6?
Most common for redundancy are RAID 1 (mirror set, 2 disks required) and RAID 5 (Stripe set with parity, 3 disks required)
Just wondering why the need for the second parity check of RAID 6 or the separate parity disk of RAID 3.
There are some very affordable IDE or SATA RAID solutions but you sacrifice speed for lower cost.
You can also establish a (software based) mirror set in Windows but you give up processor cycles to manage it. Hardware solutions are recommended.
Most common for redundancy are RAID 1 (mirror set, 2 disks required) and RAID 5 (Stripe set with parity, 3 disks required)
Just wondering why the need for the second parity check of RAID 6 or the separate parity disk of RAID 3.
There are some very affordable IDE or SATA RAID solutions but you sacrifice speed for lower cost.
You can also establish a (software based) mirror set in Windows but you give up processor cycles to manage it. Hardware solutions are recommended.
OP
OP
SirChaz said:
I don't want to sacrafice speed for cost right now. If a Raid 1 or 3 would work with out sacrificing speed and avalablitly I would be more than happy. Right now I am just starting to look into my storage needs for the next 3 years. My only worry is all the apps I will be running on this one server. This is my first Server build so I don't have much real life experance, only info I have is what I read.
Chaz
observationist
SweetD said:
RAID 6 will have the additional overhaed of an extra parity check.
In the example of the Dell 1420 you mentioned earlier a RAID 5 selection (including the RAID card) would be the best option.
Three 80 GB disks will give you about 160GB - 200GB of space total.
Three 160GB disks will give you about 320GB - 400GB of space.
A single or dual processor XEON should be pleny to run the applications for the number of users you are talking about. Plenty of memory and a dual port network adapter is recommended as well.
PortlandCardFan
Registered User
SweetD said:
Does the SATA controller support RAID?
What levels specifically? It could support only 0,1, and 5 or something similiar.
I could see you going with a second 80 GB drive and mirror it to the original hard disk. Then adding a second Controller and placing multiple drives with a RAID 5 or RAID 0+1. Most people I know and articles I have read like 0+1 because of the speed and redundancy.
OP
OP
PortlandCardFan said:
Does the SATA controller support RAID?
What levels specifically? It could support only 0,1, and 5 or something similiar.
I could see you going with a second 80 GB drive and mirror it to the original hard disk. Then adding a second Controller and placing multiple drives with a RAID 5 or RAID 0+1. Most people I know and articles I have read like 0+1 because of the speed and redundancy.
I would be buying a controller.
Chaz
observationist
PortlandCardFan said:
Does the SATA controller support RAID?
What levels specifically? It could support only 0,1, and 5 or something similiar.
I could see you going with a second 80 GB drive and mirror it to the original hard disk. Then adding a second Controller and placing multiple drives with a RAID 5 or RAID 0+1. Most people I know and articles I have read like 0+1 because of the speed and redundancy.
RAID 5 would still be faster and more configurable than RAID 1 or RAID 1+0.
The basic SATA controller does not (At least the on board Dell controller) but they have an add in SATA RAID controller for $250.
PortlandCardFan
Registered User
Chaz
observationist
Interesting I can see the overhead of the parity calculation but if RAID 1 is slower because the are two write operations for each event wouldn't that still hold true even if you are mirroring stripe sets (RAID 0+1)?
I am sure a lot of this depends on the controller and it's efficency/
RAID 0 would clearly be the fastest here but offers no redundancy.
RAID 5 would be a step slower because of the parity check but for the same reason it is redundant. Should a drive fail the computer can still operate.
In some ways you are trading little bits of time for the availability and recovery time.
You can just run RAID 0 if you want speed but in case of a drive failure the system is down and you are restoring from backup.
Another factor is the storage efficency. For example with a RAID 0+1 (4) 160GB drives give you about 320GB of storage.
With RAID 5 (4) 160GB disks give you about 450GB of storage.
I am sure a lot of this depends on the controller and it's efficency/
RAID 0 would clearly be the fastest here but offers no redundancy.
RAID 5 would be a step slower because of the parity check but for the same reason it is redundant. Should a drive fail the computer can still operate.
In some ways you are trading little bits of time for the availability and recovery time.
You can just run RAID 0 if you want speed but in case of a drive failure the system is down and you are restoring from backup.
Another factor is the storage efficency. For example with a RAID 0+1 (4) 160GB drives give you about 320GB of storage.
With RAID 5 (4) 160GB disks give you about 450GB of storage.
PortlandCardFan
Registered User
SirChaz said:
I do believe that RAID 1 is still faster than RAID 5 with writes and about the same on reads.
Can't argue with that!
Chaz
observationist
PortlandCardFan said:
I think RAID 5 is still faster especially with read operations because you are seeking from multiple disks. Write operations I believe are about the same depending on the hardware.
I can see where just duplicating the data on a stripe set (RAID 01) could be much faster without the parity calculations of the RAID5 array however.
PortlandCardFan
Registered User
google search RAID 1 vs. 5
1st hit-
http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/eac/knowledgebaseAnswer/0,295199,sid63_gci1105426,00.html
1st hit-
http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/eac/knowledgebaseAnswer/0,295199,sid63_gci1105426,00.html
OP
OP
[font=Arial,Helvetica]www.tomshardware.com/storgae has some good test on raid configurations.[/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica]http://www.tomshardware.com/storage/20020830/ide_raid2-02.html#raid_level_01[/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica]RAID Level 0+1[/font] The most popular Nested Raid is probably 0+1. You'll need an even number of hard drives for this, but at least four. Use half of the hard drives to create a stripe set (RAID 0), while the resulting construct is simply mirrored (with RAID 1). You will then get almost four times the read performance and about twice the write performance relative to a single hard drive.
[font=Arial,Helvetica]http://www.tomshardware.com/storage/20020830/ide_raid2-02.html#raid_level_01[/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica]RAID Level 0+1[/font] The most popular Nested Raid is probably 0+1. You'll need an even number of hard drives for this, but at least four. Use half of the hard drives to create a stripe set (RAID 0), while the resulting construct is simply mirrored (with RAID 1). You will then get almost four times the read performance and about twice the write performance relative to a single hard drive.
OP
OP
Ok I tried reading this again last night. So I am really confused. What Raid configuration will be good? This is a small company and should need a large amount of data, but I would like to make sure performance is key. I think I will go with a mirror image of the data on a NAS device.
So what Raid and how many drives do I need to go buy
So what Raid and how many drives do I need to go buy
Chaz
observationist
Second page and still no answers. LOL
First choice would be 5 SCSI drives.
A mirror set (RAID 1) for the OS. Two partitions to seperate the swap file and log files from the system partition.
A 3 drive RAID 5 array for the data and file storage.
My second choice would be 4 drives in a mirrored stripe set. (RAID 01)
Maybe (2) 160GB SATA drives for a 320GB drive.
include 2 more for a mirror of the stripe set.
Partition say 20GB for the OS and 300GB for file storage.
If the controller can't do nested RAID you could just create two equal stripe sets on the controller and mirror in Windows.
Both are redundant fast and reliable. The first option will cost much more.
Depends on what you are comfortable with.
Sometimes the ideal doesn't make financial sense. More times than not good enough works just fine.
First choice would be 5 SCSI drives.
A mirror set (RAID 1) for the OS. Two partitions to seperate the swap file and log files from the system partition.
A 3 drive RAID 5 array for the data and file storage.
My second choice would be 4 drives in a mirrored stripe set. (RAID 01)
Maybe (2) 160GB SATA drives for a 320GB drive.
include 2 more for a mirror of the stripe set.
Partition say 20GB for the OS and 300GB for file storage.
If the controller can't do nested RAID you could just create two equal stripe sets on the controller and mirror in Windows.
Both are redundant fast and reliable. The first option will cost much more.
Depends on what you are comfortable with.
Sometimes the ideal doesn't make financial sense. More times than not good enough works just fine.
OP
OP
SirChaz said:
Ok so how many drives do I need to buy I am looking at some 360 GB Sata drives. Do I need 4?
