| Author | Messages | |
AD000001369
Posts:0
 | | 11/07/2005 12:54 PM |
| Currently there is an open thread entitled RAID
suggestions for DC; maybe OT. I didn™t want to dirty that
thread by introducing my question that builds upon it.
How about other hardware requirements such as CPU, Disk Size
and RAM? RAID configuration I think is documented very well but how can
you scale Active Directory™s growth?
I downloaded ADSizer (http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/techinfo/reskit/tools/new/adsizer-o.asp)
but the recommended hardware did not display good results in my opinion.
It was suggested that I have a machine with 4 x 933 Xeon Processors and 512 MB
or RAM. It just does not make sense to me to have so much CPU but so
little RAM. ADSizer does recommend Disk recommendations, but my results
returned a System Disk in RAID1 but nothing for Log or Database Disks.
In the environment that I wish to deploy a new domain, I
will have around 150 or so member computers and possibly 50 or so others that
are stand alone workstations. MS Exchange 2003 will also be a part of the
domain. Initially, I do not think that any attributes other than the
required defaults will be used on user objects, but eventually I would like to
populate or add this information in the future.
Are there guidelines on recommended hardware for DC™s
in a domain? MS Exchange seems to be well documented on this but I have
not found much on DC™s.
Thanks,
Edwin | | | |
| AD00000928
Posts:0
| | 11/07/2005 1:39 AM |
| The defaults will be more than adequate for a domain of the size you
are discussing.
Personally, I don't tend to build servers today without at least 1GB
of RAM, and any modern CPU with 1GB RAM will easily handle the DC
needs for the that you're talking about.
Here are some other guidelines that I use/recommend:
http://www.ultratech-llc.com/KB/?File=ServerSpecs.TXT
-ASB
FAST, CHEAP, SECURE: Pick Any TWO
http://www.ultratech-llc.com/KB/
On 11/7/05, Edwin wrote:
>
>
> Currently there is an open thread entitled "RAID suggestions for DC; maybe
> OT". I didn't want to dirty that thread by introducing my question that
> builds upon it.
>
>
>
> How about other hardware requirements such as CPU, Disk Size and RAM? RAID
> configuration I think is documented very well but how can you scale Active
> Directory's growth?
>
>
>
> I downloaded ADSizer
> (http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/techinfo/reskit/tools/new/adsizer-o.asp)
> but the recommended hardware did not display good results in my opinion. It
> was suggested that I have a machine with 4 x 933 Xeon Processors and 512 MB
> or RAM. It just does not make sense to me to have so much CPU but so little
> RAM. ADSizer does recommend Disk recommendations, but my results returned a
> System Disk in RAID1 but nothing for Log or Database Disks.
>
>
>
> In the environment that I wish to deploy a new domain, I will have around
> 150 or so member computers and possibly 50 or so others that are stand alone
> workstations. MS Exchange 2003 will also be a part of the domain.
> Initially, I do not think that any attributes other than the required
> defaults will be used on user objects, but eventually I would like to
> populate or add this information in the future.
>
>
>
> Are there guidelines on recommended hardware for DC's in a domain? MS
> Exchange seems to be well documented on this but I have not found much on
> DC's.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Edwin
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ | | | |
| AD000001348
Posts:0
| | 11/07/2005 3:15 AM |
| Wow. A four-proc machine (933 MHZ?) for 150 users and Exchange? Wow.
My personal opinion:
When it comes to architecture, you have to decide between scale up or scale
out. In AD, scale out is often preferred because it does this well out of
the box and because you want a second copy of the IAA system (Identity,
Authentication and Authorization) for some hardware fault resiliency
purposes.
New hardware has come a long way since Windows 2000 (6 + years old). In the
case of that recommendation, you have several things to contend with: Usage
patterns, applications (Exchange mentioned but are there others?) etc. If
Exchange is the biggest consumer then likely you can get away with two
smaller DC's vs. one really big one. If you're not planning a tremendous
amount of updates, then disk is likely not a big deal other than for
resilience of the application. A couple of mirrored drives and you're
likely going to find it's plenty of performance. You almost can't buy
machines
Reply-To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To:
Subject: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 07:52:39 -0500
Currently there is an open thread entitled "RAID suggestions for DC; maybe
OT". I didn't want to dirty that thread by introducing my question that
builds upon it.
How about other hardware requirements such as CPU, Disk Size and RAM? RAID
configuration I think is documented very well but how can you scale Active
Directory's growth?
I downloaded ADSizer
(http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/techinfo/reskit/tools/new/adsizer-o.as
p) but the recommended hardware did not display good results in my opinion.
It was suggested that I have a machine with 4 x 933 Xeon Processors and 512
MB or RAM. It just does not make sense to me to have so much CPU but so
little RAM. ADSizer does recommend Disk recommendations, but my results
returned a System Disk in RAID1 but nothing for Log or Database Disks.
In the environment that I wish to deploy a new domain, I will have around
150 or so member computers and possibly 50 or so others that are stand
alone
workstations. MS Exchange 2003 will also be a part of the domain.
Initially, I do not think that any attributes other than the required
defaults will be used on user objects, but eventually I would like to
populate or add this information in the future.
Are there guidelines on recommended hardware for DC's in a domain? MS
Exchange seems to be well documented on this but I have not found much on
DC's.
Thanks,
Edwin
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ | | | |
| AD00000332
Posts:0
| | 11/07/2005 3:48 AM |
| > -----Original Message-----
> From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick
> Sent: 07 November 2005 15:13
> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
> Bottom line, I would guess that two HP 360's (SCSI; I haven't
> been made comfortable with SATA reliability yet) or 140's
> with 1GB of memory each would be more than needed based on
> those parameters.
I'm glad to hear someone else say this. SATA can work but you need to
look closely at what you're buying and what the manufacturer recommends.
If the manufacturer doesn't trust their own products for the sort of
24*7 hammering you often get in a server then why bet against them? Who
are we to assume we know a product better than the people who designed
and built it?
> If you virtualize anything on top of that,
> some other considerations would be needed of course. (or Dell
> or IBM equivalent of course).
I'd still personally be uncomfortable with virtualising all my DCs, even
onto different physical virtual server hosts, I just don't believe in
adding extra layers of complexity to fundamental network services if I
can help it.
--
Robert Moir
Microsoft MVP (Security, Virtual PC)
Senior IT Systems Engineer
Luton Sixth Form College
"He's back, and this time he's got a portable bulk-eraser!!!"
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ | | | |
| sbradcpa
Posts:299
| | 11/07/2005 5:15 AM |
| I personally have SATA experience in the tower/desktop world but none in
the rack units. Are the physical connections any stronger in the rack
world?
I like SCSI and IDE not only for their proven track record [server and
desktop respectively] but because the dang cables don't get knocked off
each time I reach into the case. Those cable connections on the back of
the SATA drives are a little worrying. I've accidentally bumped the
connection off my workstation at home twice while adding the Happauge
card and what not.
In SBSland early on we had issues with them getting loaded up, if they
are underpowered, we're seeing a bit of bottlenecks, and as one of the
SBS support gang said out of Mothership Los Colinas, if your vendor
won't guarantee that equipment for 3 years, do you really want to put
that data on that device?
So far the SATAs that we have running around in SBSland servers are
okay, but I'll report back in another 2 years and let you know.
I can't speak for the Dell rack stuff, but the Dell tower stuff...lemme
just say I'm glad Brian steered me towards HP.
Rob MOIR wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick
Sent: 07 November 2005 15:13
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
Bottom line, I would guess that two HP 360's (SCSI; I haven't
been made comfortable with SATA reliability yet) or 140's
with 1GB of memory each would be more than needed based on
those parameters.
I'm glad to hear someone else say this. SATA can work but you need to
look closely at what you're buying and what the manufacturer recommends.
If the manufacturer doesn't trust their own products for the sort of
24*7 hammering you often get in a server then why bet against them? Who
are we to assume we know a product better than the people who designed
and built it?
If you virtualize anything on top of that,
some other considerations would be needed of course. (or Dell
or IBM equivalent of course).
I'd still personally be uncomfortable with virtualising all my DCs, even
onto different physical virtual server hosts, I just don't believe in
adding extra layers of complexity to fundamental network services if I
can help it.
--
Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days?
http://www.threatcode.com
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ | | | |
| neiger@xxxx.yyy
| | 11/07/2005 5:23 AM |
| Ok, Sue, you know that when you leave a dangling diss like that someone is
going to ask you to support it ;-)
Beyond the connectors coming undone (something I have not experienced with
Dell desktop SATA), do you have specific criticisms about the Dell towers?
Thanks -- we are about to buy several of them (and rack-mounted too).
-- nme
-----Original Message-----
From: Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]
[mailto:sbradcpa@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 9:13 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
I personally have SATA experience in the tower/desktop world but none in
the rack units. Are the physical connections any stronger in the rack
world?
I like SCSI and IDE not only for their proven track record [server and
desktop respectively] but because the dang cables don't get knocked off
each time I reach into the case. Those cable connections on the back of
the SATA drives are a little worrying. I've accidentally bumped the
connection off my workstation at home twice while adding the Happauge
card and what not.
In SBSland early on we had issues with them getting loaded up, if they
are underpowered, we're seeing a bit of bottlenecks, and as one of the
SBS support gang said out of Mothership Los Colinas, if your vendor
won't guarantee that equipment for 3 years, do you really want to put
that data on that device?
So far the SATAs that we have running around in SBSland servers are
okay, but I'll report back in another 2 years and let you know.
I can't speak for the Dell rack stuff, but the Dell tower stuff...lemme
just say I'm glad Brian steered me towards HP.
Rob MOIR wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick
>> Sent: 07 November 2005 15:13
>> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
>>
>
>
>> Bottom line, I would guess that two HP 360's (SCSI; I haven't
>> been made comfortable with SATA reliability yet) or 140's
>> with 1GB of memory each would be more than needed based on
>> those parameters.
>>
>
> I'm glad to hear someone else say this. SATA can work but you need to
> look closely at what you're buying and what the manufacturer recommends.
> If the manufacturer doesn't trust their own products for the sort of
> 24*7 hammering you often get in a server then why bet against them? Who
> are we to assume we know a product better than the people who designed
> and built it?
>
>
>> If you virtualize anything on top of that,
>> some other considerations would be needed of course. (or Dell
>> or IBM equivalent of course).
>>
>
> I'd still personally be uncomfortable with virtualising all my DCs, even
> onto different physical virtual server hosts, I just don't believe in
> adding extra layers of complexity to fundamental network services if I
> can help it.
>
>
--
Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days?
http://www.threatcode.com
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ | | | |
| AD000001348
Posts:0
| | 11/07/2005 5:36 AM |
| SATA == Desktop drives.
They weren't originally concepted to be enterprise class storage. I see
them as being back-engineered to be used this way, but most of what I've
seen has been to deploy them as a JBOD in situations where you can absorb
the continuous loss of hardware and not impact performance and availability.
Typically in pools of disk and hsm solutions (what is it that hsm is
called now? ILM? :)
If you plan to deploy DAS solutions (internal or external), SATA is not
likely the way to go right now. You may want to wait a bit longer if the
data is important.
For large pools of inexpensive disks, SATA might be worthwhile to
investigate if you have a large loading bay, a good support agreement, and
close access to the highway.
-ajm
From: "Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]"
Reply-To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:13:19 -0800
I personally have SATA experience in the tower/desktop world but none in
the rack units. Are the physical connections any stronger in the rack
world?
I like SCSI and IDE not only for their proven track record [server and
desktop respectively] but because the dang cables don't get knocked off
each time I reach into the case. Those cable connections on the back of
the SATA drives are a little worrying. I've accidentally bumped the
connection off my workstation at home twice while adding the Happauge card
and what not.
In SBSland early on we had issues with them getting loaded up, if they are
underpowered, we're seeing a bit of bottlenecks, and as one of the SBS
support gang said out of Mothership Los Colinas, if your vendor won't
guarantee that equipment for 3 years, do you really want to put that data
on that device?
So far the SATAs that we have running around in SBSland servers are okay,
but I'll report back in another 2 years and let you know.
I can't speak for the Dell rack stuff, but the Dell tower stuff...lemme
just say I'm glad Brian steered me towards HP.
Rob MOIR wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick
Sent: 07 November 2005 15:13
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
Bottom line, I would guess that two HP 360's (SCSI; I haven't been made
comfortable with SATA reliability yet) or 140's with 1GB of memory each
would be more than needed based on those parameters.
I'm glad to hear someone else say this. SATA can work but you need to
look closely at what you're buying and what the manufacturer recommends.
If the manufacturer doesn't trust their own products for the sort of
24*7 hammering you often get in a server then why bet against them? Who
are we to assume we know a product better than the people who designed
and built it?
If you virtualize anything on top of that, some other considerations
would be needed of course. (or Dell or IBM equivalent of course).
I'd still personally be uncomfortable with virtualising all my DCs, even
onto different physical virtual server hosts, I just don't believe in
adding extra layers of complexity to fundamental network services if I
can help it.
--
Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days?
http://www.threatcode.com
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ | | | |
| sbradcpa
Posts:299
| | 11/07/2005 5:51 AM |
| Remember my space.....we don't do racks much in SBSland....so your
mileage in big server land may vary.
I have a Dell OEM just so I can have a Dell OEM and see what they
screwed up in that OEM image and test things on it....and ..uh....it
even sounds cheap.
It's about support as well.
HP was ready to go supporting Windows 2003 sp1 when SP1 hit the
streets.... we had to wait for Dell to release their Open Manage 4.4 to
support SP1 for a month before they would.
The HP patch notification mailings are better than Dells.
In my case it's not just about the look of the inside of the box...it's
about the support as well.
Dell in my space has the rep of being salesmen of boxes and not much else.
Noah Eiger wrote:
Ok, Sue, you know that when you leave a dangling diss like that someone is
going to ask you to support it ;-)
Beyond the connectors coming undone (something I have not experienced with
Dell desktop SATA), do you have specific criticisms about the Dell towers?
Thanks -- we are about to buy several of them (and rack-mounted too).
-- nme
-----Original Message-----
From: Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]
[mailto:sbradcpa@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 9:13 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
I personally have SATA experience in the tower/desktop world but none in
the rack units. Are the physical connections any stronger in the rack
world?
I like SCSI and IDE not only for their proven track record [server and
desktop respectively] but because the dang cables don't get knocked off
each time I reach into the case. Those cable connections on the back of
the SATA drives are a little worrying. I've accidentally bumped the
connection off my workstation at home twice while adding the Happauge
card and what not.
In SBSland early on we had issues with them getting loaded up, if they
are underpowered, we're seeing a bit of bottlenecks, and as one of the
SBS support gang said out of Mothership Los Colinas, if your vendor
won't guarantee that equipment for 3 years, do you really want to put
that data on that device?
So far the SATAs that we have running around in SBSland servers are
okay, but I'll report back in another 2 years and let you know.
I can't speak for the Dell rack stuff, but the Dell tower stuff...lemme
just say I'm glad Brian steered me towards HP.
Rob MOIR wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick
Sent: 07 November 2005 15:13
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
Bottom line, I would guess that two HP 360's (SCSI; I haven't
been made comfortable with SATA reliability yet) or 140's
with 1GB of memory each would be more than needed based on
those parameters.
I'm glad to hear someone else say this. SATA can work but you need to
look closely at what you're buying and what the manufacturer recommends.
If the manufacturer doesn't trust their own products for the sort of
24*7 hammering you often get in a server then why bet against them? Who
are we to assume we know a product better than the people who designed
and built it?
If you virtualize anything on top of that,
some other considerations would be needed of course. (or Dell
or IBM equivalent of course).
I'd still personally be uncomfortable with virtualising all my DCs, even
onto different physical virtual server hosts, I just don't believe in
adding extra layers of complexity to fundamental network services if I
can help it.
--
Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days?
http://www.threatcode.com
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ | | | |
| AD00000332
Posts:0
| | 11/07/2005 6:38 AM |
| Depends on the model. We've got some low end Dell stuff for external DNS (PowerEdge 800s) where i'm not too bothered if it dies, and the build quality is less than the normal Dell server standard (there's an open statement!).
As for the cables, they're the same no matter what so they're just as easy to knock out, but with the drives held in a decent cage on some of these servers that steers the connectors away from where your hands usually go when fitting stuff it isn't as bad as it could be.
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Noah Eiger
Sent: Mon 07/11/2005 17:22
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
Ok, Sue, you know that when you leave a dangling diss like that someone is
going to ask you to support it ;-)
Beyond the connectors coming undone (something I have not experienced with
Dell desktop SATA), do you have specific criticisms about the Dell towers?
Thanks -- we are about to buy several of them (and rack-mounted too).
-- nme
-----Original Message-----
From: Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]
[mailto:sbradcpa@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 9:13 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
I personally have SATA experience in the tower/desktop world but none in
the rack units. Are the physical connections any stronger in the rack
world?
I like SCSI and IDE not only for their proven track record [server and
desktop respectively] but because the dang cables don't get knocked off
each time I reach into the case. Those cable connections on the back of
the SATA drives are a little worrying. I've accidentally bumped the
connection off my workstation at home twice while adding the Happauge
card and what not.
In SBSland early on we had issues with them getting loaded up, if they
are underpowered, we're seeing a bit of bottlenecks, and as one of the
SBS support gang said out of Mothership Los Colinas, if your vendor
won't guarantee that equipment for 3 years, do you really want to put
that data on that device?
So far the SATAs that we have running around in SBSland servers are
okay, but I'll report back in another 2 years and let you know.
I can't speak for the Dell rack stuff, but the Dell tower stuff...lemme
just say I'm glad Brian steered me towards HP.
Rob MOIR wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick
>> Sent: 07 November 2005 15:13
>> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
>>
>
>
>> Bottom line, I would guess that two HP 360's (SCSI; I haven't
>> been made comfortable with SATA reliability yet) or 140's
>> with 1GB of memory each would be more than needed based on
>> those parameters.
>>
>
> I'm glad to hear someone else say this. SATA can work but you need to
> look closely at what you're buying and what the manufacturer recommends.
> If the manufacturer doesn't trust their own products for the sort of
> 24*7 hammering you often get in a server then why bet against them? Who
> are we to assume we know a product better than the people who designed
> and built it?
>
>
>> If you virtualize anything on top of that,
>> some other considerations would be needed of course. (or Dell
>> or IBM equivalent of course).
>>
>
> I'd still personally be uncomfortable with virtualising all my DCs, even
> onto different physical virtual server hosts, I just don't believe in
> adding extra layers of complexity to fundamental network services if I
> can help it.
>
>
--
Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days?
http://www.threatcode.com
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ | | | |
| AD00000332
Posts:0
| | 11/07/2005 6:39 AM |
| I've deployed SATA for storage of large files in Apple XRaid units in a Raid 5+1 config, and so far so good. Ask me in 3 years if I'm still just as happy ;-) but it was the only way to give the user what they wanted inside the budget we had.
One advantage of the XRaid is that it's fitted out from the get go to use SATA disks and the only reason you'd ever have to do anything to it is to replace a drive that you already know has gone bad.
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Al Mulnick
Sent: Mon 07/11/2005 17:34
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
SATA == Desktop drives.
They weren't originally concepted to be enterprise class storage. I see
them as being back-engineered to be used this way, but most of what I've
seen has been to deploy them as a JBOD in situations where you can absorb
the continuous loss of hardware and not impact performance and availability.
Typically in pools of disk and hsm solutions (what is it that hsm is
called now? ILM? :)
If you plan to deploy DAS solutions (internal or external), SATA is not
likely the way to go right now. You may want to wait a bit longer if the
data is important.
For large pools of inexpensive disks, SATA might be worthwhile to
investigate if you have a large loading bay, a good support agreement, and
close access to the highway.
-ajm
>From: "Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]"
>
>Reply-To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
>Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:13:19 -0800
>
>
>
>I personally have SATA experience in the tower/desktop world but none in
>the rack units. Are the physical connections any stronger in the rack
>world?
>
>I like SCSI and IDE not only for their proven track record [server and
>desktop respectively] but because the dang cables don't get knocked off
>each time I reach into the case. Those cable connections on the back of
>the SATA drives are a little worrying. I've accidentally bumped the
>connection off my workstation at home twice while adding the Happauge card
>and what not.
>
>In SBSland early on we had issues with them getting loaded up, if they are
>underpowered, we're seeing a bit of bottlenecks, and as one of the SBS
>support gang said out of Mothership Los Colinas, if your vendor won't
>guarantee that equipment for 3 years, do you really want to put that data
>on that device?
>
>So far the SATAs that we have running around in SBSland servers are okay,
>but I'll report back in another 2 years and let you know.
>
>I can't speak for the Dell rack stuff, but the Dell tower stuff...lemme
>just say I'm glad Brian steered me towards HP.
>
>
>
>Rob MOIR wrote:
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick
>>>Sent: 07 November 2005 15:13
>>>To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
>>>
>>
>>
>>>Bottom line, I would guess that two HP 360's (SCSI; I haven't been made
>>>comfortable with SATA reliability yet) or 140's with 1GB of memory each
>>>would be more than needed based on those parameters.
>>
>>I'm glad to hear someone else say this. SATA can work but you need to
>>look closely at what you're buying and what the manufacturer recommends.
>>If the manufacturer doesn't trust their own products for the sort of
>>24*7 hammering you often get in a server then why bet against them? Who
>>are we to assume we know a product better than the people who designed
>>and built it?
>>
>>
>>>If you virtualize anything on top of that, some other considerations
>>>would be needed of course. (or Dell or IBM equivalent of course).
>>>
>>
>>I'd still personally be uncomfortable with virtualising all my DCs, even
>>onto different physical virtual server hosts, I just don't believe in
>>adding extra layers of complexity to fundamental network services if I
>>can help it.
>>
>>
>
>--
>Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days?
>http://www.threatcode.com
>
>List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
>List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
>List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ | | | |
| AD000001348
Posts:0
| | 11/07/2005 6:55 AM |
| That's a desktop user? The apple desktop?
I don't have a problem with SATA (an upgrade from PATA) if used as designed.
It's designed for desktop storage. Not that it can't be adjusted to
server/enterprise, but it's price point and architecture are intended for
desktops (i.e. cheap but not as reliable as a shared resource).
Used appropriately, I'm quite happy with it. But it's intended to be cheap
and replaceable.
Cheap, fast, reliable - pick two (or something like that ;)
That shouldn't last if history is any indication, but for now I'll try not
to build too many centrally required applications on that technology unless
I can put a lot of abstraction in front of it (large pools that aren't
bothered by the loss of several components at a time.)
From: "Rob MOIR"
Reply-To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: ,
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 18:36:10 -0000
I've deployed SATA for storage of large files in Apple XRaid units in a
Raid 5+1 config, and so far so good. Ask me in 3 years if I'm still just as
happy ;-) but it was the only way to give the user what they wanted inside
the budget we had.
One advantage of the XRaid is that it's fitted out from the get go to use
SATA disks and the only reason you'd ever have to do anything to it is to
replace a drive that you already know has gone bad.
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Al Mulnick
Sent: Mon 07/11/2005 17:34
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
SATA == Desktop drives.
They weren't originally concepted to be enterprise class storage. I see
them as being back-engineered to be used this way, but most of what I've
seen has been to deploy them as a JBOD in situations where you can absorb
the continuous loss of hardware and not impact performance and
availability.
Typically in pools of disk and hsm solutions (what is it that hsm is
called now? ILM? :)
If you plan to deploy DAS solutions (internal or external), SATA is not
likely the way to go right now. You may want to wait a bit longer if the
data is important.
For large pools of inexpensive disks, SATA might be worthwhile to
investigate if you have a large loading bay, a good support agreement, and
close access to the highway.
-ajm
>From: "Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]"
>
>Reply-To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
>Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:13:19 -0800
>
>
>
>I personally have SATA experience in the tower/desktop world but none in
>the rack units. Are the physical connections any stronger in the rack
>world?
>
>I like SCSI and IDE not only for their proven track record [server and
>desktop respectively] but because the dang cables don't get knocked off
>each time I reach into the case. Those cable connections on the back of
>the SATA drives are a little worrying. I've accidentally bumped the
>connection off my workstation at home twice while adding the Happauge
card
>and what not.
>
>In SBSland early on we had issues with them getting loaded up, if they
are
>underpowered, we're seeing a bit of bottlenecks, and as one of the SBS
>support gang said out of Mothership Los Colinas, if your vendor won't
>guarantee that equipment for 3 years, do you really want to put that data
>on that device?
>
>So far the SATAs that we have running around in SBSland servers are okay,
>but I'll report back in another 2 years and let you know.
>
>I can't speak for the Dell rack stuff, but the Dell tower stuff...lemme
>just say I'm glad Brian steered me towards HP.
>
>
>
>Rob MOIR wrote:
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick
>>>Sent: 07 November 2005 15:13
>>>To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
>>>
>>
>>
>>>Bottom line, I would guess that two HP 360's (SCSI; I haven't been made
>>>comfortable with SATA reliability yet) or 140's with 1GB of memory each
>>>would be more than needed based on those parameters.
>>
>>I'm glad to hear someone else say this. SATA can work but you need to
>>look closely at what you're buying and what the manufacturer recommends.
>>If the manufacturer doesn't trust their own products for the sort of
>>24*7 hammering you often get in a server then why bet against them? Who
>>are we to assume we know a product better than the people who designed
>>and built it?
>>
>>
>>>If you virtualize anything on top of that, some other considerations
>>>would be needed of course. (or Dell or IBM equivalent of course).
>>>
>>
>>I'd still personally be uncomfortable with virtualising all my DCs, even
>>onto different physical virtual server hosts, I just don't believe in
>>adding extra layers of complexity to fundamental network services if I
>>can help it.
>>
>>
>
>--
>Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days?
>http://www.threatcode.com
>
>List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
>List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
>List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ | | | |
| AD00000332
Posts:0
| | 11/07/2005 7:14 AM |
| Nope, DASD to a Apple G5 Xserve for a very small amount of Apple clients (From: "Rob MOIR"
>Reply-To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: ,
>Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
>Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 18:36:10 -0000
>
>I've deployed SATA for storage of large files in Apple XRaid units in a
>Raid 5+1 config, and so far so good. Ask me in 3 years if I'm still just as
>happy ;-) but it was the only way to give the user what they wanted inside
>the budget we had.
>
>One advantage of the XRaid is that it's fitted out from the get go to use
>SATA disks and the only reason you'd ever have to do anything to it is to
>replace a drive that you already know has gone bad.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Al Mulnick
>Sent: Mon 07/11/2005 17:34
>To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
>
>
>SATA == Desktop drives.
>
>They weren't originally concepted to be enterprise class storage. I see
>them as being back-engineered to be used this way, but most of what I've
>seen has been to deploy them as a JBOD in situations where you can absorb
>the continuous loss of hardware and not impact performance and
>availability.
> Typically in pools of disk and hsm solutions (what is it that hsm is
>called now? ILM? :)
>
>If you plan to deploy DAS solutions (internal or external), SATA is not
>likely the way to go right now. You may want to wait a bit longer if the
>data is important.
>
>
>For large pools of inexpensive disks, SATA might be worthwhile to
>investigate if you have a large loading bay, a good support agreement, and
>close access to the highway.
>
>-ajm
>
>
>
> >From: "Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]"
> >
> >Reply-To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
> >Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:13:19 -0800
> >
> >
> >
> >I personally have SATA experience in the tower/desktop world but none in
> >the rack units. Are the physical connections any stronger in the rack
> >world?
> >
> >I like SCSI and IDE not only for their proven track record [server and
> >desktop respectively] but because the dang cables don't get knocked off
> >each time I reach into the case. Those cable connections on the back of
> >the SATA drives are a little worrying. I've accidentally bumped the
> >connection off my workstation at home twice while adding the Happauge
>card
> >and what not.
> >
> >In SBSland early on we had issues with them getting loaded up, if they
>are
> >underpowered, we're seeing a bit of bottlenecks, and as one of the SBS
> >support gang said out of Mothership Los Colinas, if your vendor won't
> >guarantee that equipment for 3 years, do you really want to put that data
> >on that device?
> >
> >So far the SATAs that we have running around in SBSland servers are okay,
> >but I'll report back in another 2 years and let you know.
> >
> >I can't speak for the Dell rack stuff, but the Dell tower stuff...lemme
> >just say I'm glad Brian steered me towards HP.
> >
> >
> >
> >Rob MOIR wrote:
> >>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick
> >>>Sent: 07 November 2005 15:13
> >>>To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Bottom line, I would guess that two HP 360's (SCSI; I haven't been made
> >>>comfortable with SATA reliability yet) or 140's with 1GB of memory each
> >>>would be more than needed based on those parameters.
> >>
> >>I'm glad to hear someone else say this. SATA can work but you need to
> >>look closely at what you're buying and what the manufacturer recommends.
> >>If the manufacturer doesn't trust their own products for the sort of
> >>24*7 hammering you often get in a server then why bet against them? Who
> >>are we to assume we know a product better than the people who designed
> >>and built it?
> >>
> >>
> >>>If you virtualize anything on top of that, some other considerations
> >>>would be needed of course. (or Dell or IBM equivalent of course).
> >>>
> >>
> >>I'd still personally be uncomfortable with virtualising all my DCs, even
> >>onto different physical virtual server hosts, I just don't believe in
> >>adding extra layers of complexity to fundamental network services if I
> >>can help it.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >--
> >Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days?
> >http://www.threatcode.com
> >
> >List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> >List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> >List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
>
>
>List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
>List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
>List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
>
>List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
>List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
>List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ | | | |
| AD000001348
Posts:0
| | 11/07/2005 8:43 AM |
| Interesting. If that solution becomes a problem, have a look at
http://www.centrify.com and see if you can change some of that :)
Seriously, it is interesting and I'm interested to hear of the long term
results as they occur. Shall we check back in a year or so?
Al
From: "Rob MOIR"
Reply-To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: ,
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 19:07:28 -0000
Nope, DASD to a Apple G5 Xserve for a very small amount of Apple clients
(From: "Rob MOIR"
>Reply-To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: ,
>Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
>Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 18:36:10 -0000
>
>I've deployed SATA for storage of large files in Apple XRaid units in a
>Raid 5+1 config, and so far so good. Ask me in 3 years if I'm still just
as
>happy ;-) but it was the only way to give the user what they wanted
inside
>the budget we had.
>
>One advantage of the XRaid is that it's fitted out from the get go to use
>SATA disks and the only reason you'd ever have to do anything to it is to
>replace a drive that you already know has gone bad.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Al Mulnick
>Sent: Mon 07/11/2005 17:34
>To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
>
>
>SATA == Desktop drives.
>
>They weren't originally concepted to be enterprise class storage. I see
>them as being back-engineered to be used this way, but most of what I've
>seen has been to deploy them as a JBOD in situations where you can absorb
>the continuous loss of hardware and not impact performance and
>availability.
> Typically in pools of disk and hsm solutions (what is it that hsm is
>called now? ILM? :)
>
>If you plan to deploy DAS solutions (internal or external), SATA is not
>likely the way to go right now. You may want to wait a bit longer if the
>data is important.
>
>
>For large pools of inexpensive disks, SATA might be worthwhile to
>investigate if you have a large loading bay, a good support agreement,
and
>close access to the highway.
>
>-ajm
>
>
>
> >From: "Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]"
> >
> >Reply-To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
> >Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:13:19 -0800
> >
> >
> >
> >I personally have SATA experience in the tower/desktop world but none
in
> >the rack units. Are the physical connections any stronger in the rack
> >world?
> >
> >I like SCSI and IDE not only for their proven track record [server and
> >desktop respectively] but because the dang cables don't get knocked off
> >each time I reach into the case. Those cable connections on the back
of
> >the SATA drives are a little worrying. I've accidentally bumped the
> >connection off my workstation at home twice while adding the Happauge
>card
> >and what not.
> >
> >In SBSland early on we had issues with them getting loaded up, if they
>are
> >underpowered, we're seeing a bit of bottlenecks, and as one of the SBS
> >support gang said out of Mothership Los Colinas, if your vendor won't
> >guarantee that equipment for 3 years, do you really want to put that
data
> >on that device?
> >
> >So far the SATAs that we have running around in SBSland servers are
okay,
> >but I'll report back in another 2 years and let you know.
> >
> >I can't speak for the Dell rack stuff, but the Dell tower stuff...lemme
> >just say I'm glad Brian steered me towards HP.
> >
> >
> >
> >Rob MOIR wrote:
> >>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick
> >>>Sent: 07 November 2005 15:13
> >>>To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Bottom line, I would guess that two HP 360's (SCSI; I haven't been
made
> >>>comfortable with SATA reliability yet) or 140's with 1GB of memory
each
> >>>would be more than needed based on those parameters.
> >>
> >>I'm glad to hear someone else say this. SATA can work but you need to
> >>look closely at what you're buying and what the manufacturer
recommends.
> >>If the manufacturer doesn't trust their own products for the sort of
> >>24*7 hammering you often get in a server then why bet against them?
Who
> >>are we to assume we know a product better than the people who designed
> >>and built it?
> >>
> >>
> >>>If you virtualize anything on top of that, some other considerations
> >>>would be needed of course. (or Dell or IBM equivalent of course).
> >>>
> >>
> >>I'd still personally be uncomfortable with virtualising all my DCs,
even
> >>onto different physical virtual server hosts, I just don't believe in
> >>adding extra layers of complexity to fundamental network services if I
> >>can help it.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >--
> >Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days?
> >http://www.threatcode.com
> >
> >List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> >List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> >List archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
>
>
>List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
>List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
>List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
>
>List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
>List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
>List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ | | | |
| AD00000332
Posts:0
| | 11/07/2005 9:42 AM |
| -----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Al Mulnick
Sent: Mon 07/11/2005 20:41
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
> Interesting. If that solution becomes a problem, have a look at
> http://www.centrify.com and see if you can change some of that :)
Hmmm either their demo does a poor job of explaining their product or their product would actually be a downgrade for us!
To cut a long story short, we use no 3rd party software, it's all done with default Apple and MS tools. We're using AD to hold all of our user objects and most of the group objects, so our password and security policies are already enforced "out of the box". OS X desktops have computer accounts in an AD OU in order for the machines to authenticate to AD, and join the domain as part of their install routine.
What exists in Open Dir is one or two "built in" groups that we drop AD groups into and various other objects which describe various default settings to apply to desktop machines (vaguely like GPOs but not as sophisticated). The stuff that goes here is really minimal from our point of view but those little bits make a big difference to the "user experience".
> Seriously, it is interesting and I'm interested to hear of the long term
> results as they occur. Shall we check back in a year or so?
Surely. I'm certain I'll have either set fire to the Apple servers we have now by then or purchased another one. We installed our server in August and while it's only been a few months now things have been working very well so far I have to say, and once the config was complete this setup has required very little day to day admin time. It's far more robust than I was probably making it sound earlier!
rob
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ | | | |
| AD00000928
Posts:0
| | 11/08/2005 1:15 AM |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't have a problem with SATA (an upgrade from PATA) if used as designed.
It's designed for desktop storage. Not that it can't be adjusted to
server/enterprise, but it's price point and architecture are intended for
desktops (i.e. cheap but not as reliable as a shared resource).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Depends on the size of the "enterprise"
SATA has its place in the server segments of smaller orgs for sure.
It's not too long ago that Windows and Intel processors were
considered "not designed for the enterprise"...
-ASB
FAST, CHEAP, SECURE: Pick Any TWO
http://www.ultratech-llc.com/KB/
On 11/7/05, Al Mulnick wrote:
> That's a desktop user? The apple desktop?
>
> I don't have a problem with SATA (an upgrade from PATA) if used as designed.
> It's designed for desktop storage. Not that it can't be adjusted to
> server/enterprise, but it's price point and architecture are intended for
> desktops (i.e. cheap but not as reliable as a shared resource).
>
> Used appropriately, I'm quite happy with it. But it's intended to be cheap
> and replaceable.
>
> Cheap, fast, reliable - pick two (or something like that ;)
>
> That shouldn't last if history is any indication, but for now I'll try not
> to build too many centrally required applications on that technology unless
> I can put a lot of abstraction in front of it (large pools that aren't
> bothered by the loss of several components at a time.)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: "Rob MOIR"
> >Reply-To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >To: ,
> >Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
> >Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 18:36:10 -0000
> >
> >I've deployed SATA for storage of large files in Apple XRaid units in a
> >Raid 5+1 config, and so far so good. Ask me in 3 years if I'm still just as
> >happy ;-) but it was the only way to give the user what they wanted inside
> >the budget we had.
> >
> >One advantage of the XRaid is that it's fitted out from the get go to use
> >SATA disks and the only reason you'd ever have to do anything to it is to
> >replace a drive that you already know has gone bad.
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Al Mulnick
> >Sent: Mon 07/11/2005 17:34
> >To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
> >
> >
> >SATA == Desktop drives.
> >
> >They weren't originally concepted to be enterprise class storage. I see
> >them as being back-engineered to be used this way, but most of what I've
> >seen has been to deploy them as a JBOD in situations where you can absorb
> >the continuous loss of hardware and not impact performance and
> >availability.
> > Typically in pools of disk and hsm solutions (what is it that hsm is
> >called now? ILM? :)
> >
> >If you plan to deploy DAS solutions (internal or external), SATA is not
> >likely the way to go right now. You may want to wait a bit longer if the
> >data is important.
> >
> >
> >For large pools of inexpensive disks, SATA might be worthwhile to
> >investigate if you have a large loading bay, a good support agreement, and
> >close access to the highway.
> >
> >-ajm
> >
> >
> >
> > >From: "Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]"
> > >
> > >Reply-To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
> > >Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:13:19 -0800
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >I personally have SATA experience in the tower/desktop world but none in
> > >the rack units. Are the physical connections any stronger in the rack
> > >world?
> > >
> > >I like SCSI and IDE not only for their proven track record [server and
> > >desktop respectively] but because the dang cables don't get knocked off
> > >each time I reach into the case. Those cable connections on the back of
> > >the SATA drives are a little worrying. I've accidentally bumped the
> > >connection off my workstation at home twice while adding the Happauge
> >card
> > >and what not.
> > >
> > >In SBSland early on we had issues with them getting loaded up, if they
> >are
> > >underpowered, we're seeing a bit of bottlenecks, and as one of the SBS
> > >support gang said out of Mothership Los Colinas, if your vendor won't
> > >guarantee that equipment for 3 years, do you really want to put that data
> > >on that device?
> > >
> > >So far the SATAs that we have running around in SBSland servers are okay,
> > >but I'll report back in another 2 years and let you know.
> > >
> > >I can't speak for the Dell rack stuff, but the Dell tower stuff...lemme
> > >just say I'm glad Brian steered me towards HP.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Rob MOIR wrote:
> > >>>-----Original Message-----
> > >>>From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >>>[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick
> > >>>Sent: 07 November 2005 15:13
> > >>>To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >>>Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>Bottom line, I would guess that two HP 360's (SCSI; I haven't been made
> > >>>comfortable with SATA reliability yet) or 140's with 1GB of memory each
> > >>>would be more than needed based on those parameters.
> > >>
> > >>I'm glad to hear someone else say this. SATA can work but you need to
> > >>look closely at what you're buying and what the manufacturer recommends.
> > >>If the manufacturer doesn't trust their own products for the sort of
> > >>24*7 hammering you often get in a server then why bet against them? Who
> > >>are we to assume we know a product better than the people who designed
> > >>and built it?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>If you virtualize anything on top of that, some other considerations
> > >>>would be needed of course. (or Dell or IBM equivalent of course).
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>I'd still personally be uncomfortable with virtualising all my DCs, even
> > >>onto different physical virtual server hosts, I just don't believe in
> > >>adding extra layers of complexity to fundamental network services if I
> > >>can help it.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >--
> > >Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days?
> > >http://www.threatcode.com
> > >
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ | | | |
| AD000001348
Posts:0
| | 11/08/2005 2:01 AM |
| Agreed. That bit of history is exactly what I was thinking as I wrote that.
Those things that today are not enterprise ready, may be tomorrow. Not sure
if the thing has to change or if my perception of the "enterprise" does, but
change is constant ;)
Like I said, I wouldn't want it today for an enterprise class machine (large
centralized enterprise for clarification, where >1000 people concurrently
rely on it for business critical service).
-ajm
From: ASB
Reply-To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 08:13:22 -0500
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't have a problem with SATA (an upgrade from PATA) if used as
designed.
It's designed for desktop storage. Not that it can't be adjusted to
server/enterprise, but it's price point and architecture are intended for
desktops (i.e. cheap but not as reliable as a shared resource).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Depends on the size of the "enterprise"
SATA has its place in the server segments of smaller orgs for sure.
It's not too long ago that Windows and Intel processors were
considered "not designed for the enterprise"...
-ASB
FAST, CHEAP, SECURE: Pick Any TWO
http://www.ultratech-llc.com/KB/
On 11/7/05, Al Mulnick wrote:
> That's a desktop user? The apple desktop?
>
> I don't have a problem with SATA (an upgrade from PATA) if used as
designed.
> It's designed for desktop storage. Not that it can't be adjusted to
> server/enterprise, but it's price point and architecture are intended
for
> desktops (i.e. cheap but not as reliable as a shared resource).
>
> Used appropriately, I'm quite happy with it. But it's intended to be
cheap
> and replaceable.
>
> Cheap, fast, reliable - pick two (or something like that ;)
>
> That shouldn't last if history is any indication, but for now I'll try
not
> to build too many centrally required applications on that technology
unless
> I can put a lot of abstraction in front of it (large pools that aren't
> bothered by the loss of several components at a time.)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: "Rob MOIR"
> >Reply-To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >To: ,
> >Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
> >Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 18:36:10 -0000
> >
> >I've deployed SATA for storage of large files in Apple XRaid units in a
> >Raid 5+1 config, and so far so good. Ask me in 3 years if I'm still
just as
> >happy ;-) but it was the only way to give the user what they wanted
inside
> >the budget we had.
> >
> >One advantage of the XRaid is that it's fitted out from the get go to
use
> >SATA disks and the only reason you'd ever have to do anything to it is
to
> >replace a drive that you already know has gone bad.
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Al Mulnick
> >Sent: Mon 07/11/2005 17:34
> >To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
> >
> >
> >SATA == Desktop drives.
> >
> >They weren't originally concepted to be enterprise class storage. I
see
> >them as being back-engineered to be used this way, but most of what
I've
> >seen has been to deploy them as a JBOD in situations where you can
absorb
> >the continuous loss of hardware and not impact performance and
> >availability.
> > Typically in pools of disk and hsm solutions (what is it that hsm is
> >called now? ILM? :)
> >
> >If you plan to deploy DAS solutions (internal or external), SATA is not
> >likely the way to go right now. You may want to wait a bit longer if
the
> >data is important.
> >
> >
> >For large pools of inexpensive disks, SATA might be worthwhile to
> >investigate if you have a large loading bay, a good support agreement,
and
> >close access to the highway.
> >
> >-ajm
> >
> >
> >
> > >From: "Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]"
> > >
> > >Reply-To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
> > >Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:13:19 -0800
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >I personally have SATA experience in the tower/desktop world but none
in
> > >the rack units. Are the physical connections any stronger in the
rack
> > >world?
> > >
> > >I like SCSI and IDE not only for their proven track record [server
and
> > >desktop respectively] but because the dang cables don't get knocked
off
> > >each time I reach into the case. Those cable connections on the back
of
> > >the SATA drives are a little worrying. I've accidentally bumped the
> > >connection off my workstation at home twice while adding the Happauge
> >card
> > >and what not.
> > >
> > >In SBSland early on we had issues with them getting loaded up, if
they
> >are
> > >underpowered, we're seeing a bit of bottlenecks, and as one of the
SBS
> > >support gang said out of Mothership Los Colinas, if your vendor won't
> > >guarantee that equipment for 3 years, do you really want to put that
data
> > >on that device?
> > >
> > >So far the SATAs that we have running around in SBSland servers are
okay,
> > >but I'll report back in another 2 years and let you know.
> > >
> > >I can't speak for the Dell rack stuff, but the Dell tower
stuff...lemme
> > >just say I'm glad Brian steered me towards HP.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Rob MOIR wrote:
> > >>>-----Original Message-----
> > >>>From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >>>[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick
> > >>>Sent: 07 November 2005 15:13
> > >>>To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >>>Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>Bottom line, I would guess that two HP 360's (SCSI; I haven't been
made
> > >>>comfortable with SATA reliability yet) or 140's with 1GB of memory
each
> > >>>would be more than needed based on those parameters.
> > >>
> > >>I'm glad to hear someone else say this. SATA can work but you need
to
> > >>look closely at what you're buying and what the manufacturer
recommends.
> > >>If the manufacturer doesn't trust their own products for the sort of
> > >>24*7 hammering you often get in a server then why bet against them?
Who
> > >>are we to assume we know a product better than the people who
designed
> > >>and built it?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>If you virtualize anything on top of that, some other
considerations
> > >>>would be needed of course. (or Dell or IBM equivalent of course).
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>I'd still personally be uncomfortable with virtualising all my DCs,
even
> > >>onto different physical virtual server hosts, I just don't believe
in
> > >>adding extra layers of complexity to fundamental network services if
I
> > >>can help it.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >--
> > >Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days?
> > >http://www.threatcode.com
> > >
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ | | | |
| bdesmond
Posts:347
| | 11/08/2005 2:49 AM |
| Personally, I usually schedule physical maintenance once per calendar year
on all my servers. Primarily, I have the muffler bearings lubricated inside.
We also check the bit bucket and empty it if need be. Sometimes a buffer
overflows into the bit bucket, unpatched machines in particular tend to need
to be emptied.
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
c - 312.731.3132
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steve Rochford
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 3:49 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
> I like SCSI and IDE not only for their proven track record
> [server and desktop respectively] but because the dang cables
> don't get knocked off each time I reach into the case. Those
> cable connections on the back of the SATA drives are a little
> worrying. I've accidentally bumped the connection off my
> workstation at home twice while adding the Happauge card and what not.
I can understand that with a home machine you're going to be taking the
top off at regular intervals to play with it (err; upgrade hardware etc)
but why on earth would you ever open a server unless it has a fault? We
have servers that go their entire life without being opened up. Is there
some major bit of server management that I'm missing by not taking it
apart on a regular basis??
Steve
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ | | | |
| rkingsla@xxxx.yyy
| | 11/08/2005 2:59 AM |
| Add to that - SATA is not for the desktop only. Check out some of the SAN
coming out from most vendors, EMC included. Those drives and connections
look a lot like SATA to me.
Rick [msft]
--
Posting is provided "AS IS", and confers no rights or warranties ...
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ASB
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 7:13 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't have a problem with SATA (an upgrade from PATA) if used as designed.
It's designed for desktop storage. Not that it can't be adjusted to
server/enterprise, but it's price point and architecture are intended for
desktops (i.e. cheap but not as reliable as a shared resource).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Depends on the size of the "enterprise"
SATA has its place in the server segments of smaller orgs for sure.
It's not too long ago that Windows and Intel processors were considered "not
designed for the enterprise"...
-ASB
FAST, CHEAP, SECURE: Pick Any TWO
http://www.ultratech-llc.com/KB/
On 11/7/05, Al Mulnick wrote:
> That's a desktop user? The apple desktop?
>
> I don't have a problem with SATA (an upgrade from PATA) if used as
designed.
> It's designed for desktop storage. Not that it can't be adjusted to
> server/enterprise, but it's price point and architecture are intended
> for desktops (i.e. cheap but not as reliable as a shared resource).
>
> Used appropriately, I'm quite happy with it. But it's intended to be
> cheap and replaceable.
>
> Cheap, fast, reliable - pick two (or something like that ;)
>
> That shouldn't last if history is any indication, but for now I'll try
> not to build too many centrally required applications on that
> technology unless I can put a lot of abstraction in front of it (large
> pools that aren't bothered by the loss of several components at a
> time.)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: "Rob MOIR"
> >Reply-To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >To: ,
> >Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
> >Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 18:36:10 -0000
> >
> >I've deployed SATA for storage of large files in Apple XRaid units in
> >a Raid 5+1 config, and so far so good. Ask me in 3 years if I'm still
> >just as happy ;-) but it was the only way to give the user what they
> >wanted inside the budget we had.
> >
> >One advantage of the XRaid is that it's fitted out from the get go to
> >use SATA disks and the only reason you'd ever have to do anything to
> >it is to replace a drive that you already know has gone bad.
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Al Mulnick
> >Sent: Mon 07/11/2005 17:34
> >To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
> >
> >
> >SATA == Desktop drives.
> >
> >They weren't originally concepted to be enterprise class storage. I
> >see them as being back-engineered to be used this way, but most of
> >what I've seen has been to deploy them as a JBOD in situations where
> >you can absorb the continuous loss of hardware and not impact
> >performance and availability.
> > Typically in pools of disk and hsm solutions (what is it that hsm
> >is called now? ILM? :)
> >
> >If you plan to deploy DAS solutions (internal or external), SATA is
> >not likely the way to go right now. You may want to wait a bit
> >longer if the data is important.
> >
> >
> >For large pools of inexpensive disks, SATA might be worthwhile to
> >investigate if you have a large loading bay, a good support
> >agreement, and close access to the highway.
> >
> >-ajm
> >
> >
> >
> > >From: "Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]"
> > >
> > >Reply-To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
> > >Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:13:19 -0800
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >I personally have SATA experience in the tower/desktop world but
> > >none in the rack units. Are the physical connections any stronger
> > >in the rack world?
> > >
> > >I like SCSI and IDE not only for their proven track record [server
> > >and desktop respectively] but because the dang cables don't get
> > >knocked off each time I reach into the case. Those cable
> > >connections on the back of the SATA drives are a little worrying.
> > >I've accidentally bumped the connection off my workstation at home
> > >twice while adding the Happauge
> >card
> > >and what not.
> > >
> > >In SBSland early on we had issues with them getting loaded up, if
> > >they
> >are
> > >underpowered, we're seeing a bit of bottlenecks, and as one of the
> > >SBS support gang said out of Mothership Los Colinas, if your vendor
> > >won't guarantee that equipment for 3 years, do you really want to
> > >put that data on that device?
> > >
> > >So far the SATAs that we have running around in SBSland servers are
> > >okay, but I'll report back in another 2 years and let you know.
> > >
> > >I can't speak for the Dell rack stuff, but the Dell tower
> > >stuff...lemme just say I'm glad Brian steered me towards HP.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Rob MOIR wrote:
> > >>>-----Original Message-----
> > >>>From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >>>[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Al
> > >>>Mulnick
> > >>>Sent: 07 November 2005 15:13
> > >>>To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >>>Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>Bottom line, I would guess that two HP 360's (SCSI; I haven't
> > >>>been made comfortable with SATA reliability yet) or 140's with
> > >>>1GB of memory each would be more than needed based on those
parameters.
> > >>
> > >>I'm glad to hear someone else say this. SATA can work but you need
> > >>to look closely at what you're buying and what the manufacturer
recommends.
> > >>If the manufacturer doesn't trust their own products for the sort
> > >>of
> > >>24*7 hammering you often get in a server then why bet against
> > >>them? Who are we to assume we know a product better than the
> > >>people who designed and built it?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>If you virtualize anything on top of that, some other
> > >>>considerations would be needed of course. (or Dell or IBM equivalent
of course).
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>I'd still personally be uncomfortable with virtualising all my
> > >>DCs, even onto different physical virtual server hosts, I just
> > >>don't believe in adding extra layers of complexity to fundamental
> > >>network services if I can help it.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >--
> > >Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days?
> > >http://www.threatcode.com
> > >
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ | | | |
| sbradcpa
Posts:299
| | 11/08/2005 3:07 AM |
| ..well.. a drive in a member server dropped off the raid the other day
and I had to open up a box and replace a SCSI drive.
And quite frankly those SATA connections 'on' the drive feel flimsy
enought to snap off if I'm not careful, or not solid enough that a
Calfornia earthquake would jolt them off.
Steve Rochford wrote:
I like SCSI and IDE not only for their proven track record
[server and desktop respectively] but because the dang cables
don't get knocked off each time I reach into the case. Those
cable connections on the back of the SATA drives are a little
worrying. I've accidentally bumped the connection off my
workstation at home twice while adding the Happauge card and what not.
I can understand that with a home machine you're going to be taking the
top off at regular intervals to play with it (err; upgrade hardware etc)
but why on earth would you ever open a server unless it has a fault? We
have servers that go their entire life without being opened up. Is there
some major bit of server management that I'm missing by not taking it
apart on a regular basis??
Steve
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ | | | |
| sbradcpa
Posts:299
| | 11/08/2005 3:26 AM |
| I've seen the SAN vendors these days include SATA drives.
Al Mulnick wrote:
Agreed. That bit of history is exactly what I was thinking as I wrote
that. Those things that today are not enterprise ready, may be
tomorrow. Not sure if the thing has to change or if my perception of
the "enterprise" does, but change is constant ;)
Like I said, I wouldn't want it today for an enterprise class machine
(large centralized enterprise for clarification, where >1000 people
concurrently rely on it for business critical service).
-ajm
From: ASB
Reply-To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 08:13:22 -0500
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't have a problem with SATA (an upgrade from PATA) if used as
designed.
It's designed for desktop storage. Not that it can't be adjusted to
server/enterprise, but it's price point and architecture are intended
for
desktops (i.e. cheap but not as reliable as a shared resource).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Depends on the size of the "enterprise"
SATA has its place in the server segments of smaller orgs for sure.
It's not too long ago that Windows and Intel processors were
considered "not designed for the enterprise"...
-ASB
FAST, CHEAP, SECURE: Pick Any TWO
http://www.ultratech-llc.com/KB/
On 11/7/05, Al Mulnick wrote:
> That's a desktop user? The apple desktop?
>
> I don't have a problem with SATA (an upgrade from PATA) if used as
designed.
> It's designed for desktop storage. Not that it can't be adjusted to
> server/enterprise, but it's price point and architecture are
intended for
> desktops (i.e. cheap but not as reliable as a shared resource).
>
> Used appropriately, I'm quite happy with it. But it's intended to
be cheap
> and replaceable.
>
> Cheap, fast, reliable - pick two (or something like that ;)
>
> That shouldn't last if history is any indication, but for now I'll
try not
> to build too many centrally required applications on that
technology unless
> I can put a lot of abstraction in front of it (large pools that aren't
> bothered by the loss of several components at a time.)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: "Rob MOIR"
> >Reply-To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >To: ,
> >Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
> >Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 18:36:10 -0000
> >
> >I've deployed SATA for storage of large files in Apple XRaid units
in a
> >Raid 5+1 config, and so far so good. Ask me in 3 years if I'm
still just as
> >happy ;-) but it was the only way to give the user what they
wanted inside
> >the budget we had.
> >
> >One advantage of the XRaid is that it's fitted out from the get go
to use
> >SATA disks and the only reason you'd ever have to do anything to
it is to
> >replace a drive that you already know has gone bad.
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Al Mulnick
> >Sent: Mon 07/11/2005 17:34
> >To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
> >
> >
> >SATA == Desktop drives.
> >
> >They weren't originally concepted to be enterprise class storage.
I see
> >them as being back-engineered to be used this way, but most of
what I've
> >seen has been to deploy them as a JBOD in situations where you can
absorb
> >the continuous loss of hardware and not impact performance and
> >availability.
> > Typically in pools of disk and hsm solutions (what is it that
hsm is
> >called now? ILM? :)
> >
> >If you plan to deploy DAS solutions (internal or external), SATA
is not
> >likely the way to go right now. You may want to wait a bit longer
if the
> >data is important.
> >
> >
> >For large pools of inexpensive disks, SATA might be worthwhile to
> >investigate if you have a large loading bay, a good support
agreement, and
> >close access to the highway.
> >
> >-ajm
> >
> >
> >
> > >From: "Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]"
> > >
> > >Reply-To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
> > >Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:13:19 -0800
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >I personally have SATA experience in the tower/desktop world but
none in
> > >the rack units. Are the physical connections any stronger in
the rack
> > >world?
> > >
> > >I like SCSI and IDE not only for their proven track record
[server and
> > >desktop respectively] but because the dang cables don't get
knocked off
> > >each time I reach into the case. Those cable connections on the
back of
> > >the SATA drives are a little worrying. I've accidentally bumped
the
> > >connection off my workstation at home twice while adding the
Happauge
> >card
> > >and what not.
> > >
> > >In SBSland early on we had issues with them getting loaded up,
if they
> >are
> > >underpowered, we're seeing a bit of bottlenecks, and as one of
the SBS
> > >support gang said out of Mothership Los Colinas, if your vendor
won't
> > >guarantee that equipment for 3 years, do you really want to put
that data
> > >on that device?
> > >
> > >So far the SATAs that we have running around in SBSland servers
are okay,
> > >but I'll report back in another 2 years and let you know.
> > >
> > >I can't speak for the Dell rack stuff, but the Dell tower
stuff...lemme
> > >just say I'm glad Brian steered me towards HP.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Rob MOIR wrote:
> > >>>-----Original Message-----
> > >>>From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >>>[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Al
Mulnick
> > >>>Sent: 07 November 2005 15:13
> > >>>To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >>>Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>Bottom line, I would guess that two HP 360's (SCSI; I haven't
been made
> > >>>comfortable with SATA reliability yet) or 140's with 1GB of
memory each
> > >>>would be more than needed based on those parameters.
> > >>
> > >>I'm glad to hear someone else say this. SATA can work but you
need to
> > >>look closely at what you're buying and what the manufacturer
recommends.
> > >>If the manufacturer doesn't trust their own products for the
sort of
> > >>24*7 hammering you often get in a server then why bet against
them? Who
> > >>are we to assume we know a product better than the people who
designed
> > >>and built it?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>If you virtualize anything on top of that, some other
considerations
> > >>>would be needed of course. (or Dell or IBM equivalent of course).
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>I'd still personally be uncomfortable with virtualising all my
DCs, even
> > >>onto different physical virtual server hosts, I just don't
believe in
> > >>adding extra layers of complexity to fundamental network
services if I
> > >>can help it.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >--
> > >Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days?
> > >http://www.threatcode.com
> > >
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ | | | |
|
|