| Author | Messages | |
bdesmond
Posts:347
 | | 11/08/2005 3:57 AM |
| I know our Clariion has shelves with 14x320GB raw storage. It's great low
cost storage for things which you don't need the performance of a scsi/fc
disk from. We use it for stuff like archiving.
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
c - 312.731.3132
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Susan Bradley, CPA
aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 10:33 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
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/
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/ | | | |
| AD000001335
Posts:0
| | 11/08/2005 4:15 AM |
| SATA cables look to scale a whole lot better. They're a whole lot less
cumbersome than the IDE/ATA ribbon cables, and you can get a lot more plugs
into less space.
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rick Kingslan
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 6:50 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
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/
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/ | | | |
| AlLilianstrom
Posts:6
| | 11/08/2005 4:19 AM |
| Rick Kingslan wrote:
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.
We have SATA bricks attached to our SAN. They have some issues that, in
my opinion, make them not quite 'enterprise' ready. A different vendor
just dropped off a rack full of disks (SATA and FC) for us to test as
part of a NAS investigation. The SATA based arrays are slower than the
FC based arrays. Not as much as they used to be but still significantly
slower. That said - we haven't moved anything real important to the SATA
volumes yet. Mainly archives and temp storage for data reprocessing
right now.
al
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/
--
Al Lilianstrom
CD/CSS/CSI
Al.Lilianstrom@xxxxxxxx
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/ | | | |
| AlLilianstrom
Posts:6
| | 11/08/2005 4:30 AM |
| Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP] wrote:
..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.
I think that a latch similar to a CAT5 cable is part of the SATA2 spec.
I have 3 racks full of servers with SATA drives in them. I haven't had a
loose cable yet. I don't think our SAN bricks with SATA drives have had
one either.
al
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/
--
Al Lilianstrom
CD/CSS/CSI
Al.Lilianstrom@xxxxxxxx
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 4:35 AM |
| Right. They do include them. What's the failure rate and why don't you use
them for things like day to day file and print? Is it because EMC lives on
site and is constantly doing the replacement shuffle or is there another
reason, perhaps non-technical?
What I'm getting at is that SATA drives have a place in the world. They
were intended to be a desktop solution (presumably where failures are more
tolerated because they only take out one or two productivity hours to
replace in case of failure.) They are migrating to other applications that
SAN vendors are pushing to drive down the costs of raw storage. Does that
make it ready for enterprise class storage? I think it does if you change
the meaning? I define it as supporting storage for a centrally located
resource that supports greater than 1000 concurrent users. I don't consider
it performance issue directly, but rather a problem with reliability. I
don't think the reliability is there yet. It will be I'm sure.
Does it work well for backup/archive solutions? I think it's well suited for
that purpose because it's AT LEAST as reliable as tape but much faster and
likely cheaper over time per MB. That's a familiar path that SCSI based
systems took as well and I'm sure it'll have similar results long term.
FWIW, I'm not convinced it's the transport but the media being used in those
devices. I don't think anyone bothered to care as much about quality as
they did price/space. When that changes so will my thinking about the
capabilities of SATA in a centrally deployed, user dense environment. Until
then, it's cheap and disposable and can be utilized to support cheap and
disposable (read that as reliability is not important to the task) usage
scenarios. I'll use something a little more reliable until then at a higher
cost.
Risk/Benefit - different for everyone but just because EMC puts it into
their solutions doesn't make it right. Heck, EMC doesn't always do what I
consider to be in my best interest anyway. I can only count any vendor to
do what brings them revenue; after that it's on a case by case basis.
Al
From: "Brian Desmond"
Reply-To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To:
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 10:55:32 -0500
I know our Clariion has shelves with 14x320GB raw storage. It's great low
cost storage for things which you don't need the performance of a scsi/fc
disk from. We use it for stuff like archiving.
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
c - 312.731.3132
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Susan Bradley, CPA
aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 10:33 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
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/
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/ | | | |
| jmedeiros@xxxx.yyy
| | 11/08/2005 4:45 AM |
| In the division I work in we use HP Proliant DL-360's and run only RAID 1 ( Mirrored ) we only use RAID 0+1 ( 10 ) when we require very fast I/O such as on a heavily used Exchange server or SQL server. Personally I think it is a waste of resources to run AD on RAID 0+1 ( 10 ), it would not hurt to have faster disk I/O, but unnecessary.
Sincerely,
Jose Medeiros
ADP | National Account Services
ProBusiness Division | Information Services
925.737.7967 | 408-449-6621 CELL
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Al Lilianstrom
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 8:16 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
Rick Kingslan wrote:
> 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.
We have SATA bricks attached to our SAN. They have some issues that, in
my opinion, make them not quite 'enterprise' ready. A different vendor
just dropped off a rack full of disks (SATA and FC) for us to test as
part of a NAS investigation. The SATA based arrays are slower than the
FC based arrays. Not as much as they used to be but still significantly
slower. That said - we haven't moved anything real important to the SATA
volumes yet. Mainly archives and temp storage for data reprocessing
right now.
al
> 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/
--
Al Lilianstrom
CD/CSS/CSI
Al.Lilianstrom@xxxxxxxx
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/ | | | |
| listmail
Posts:429
| | 11/08/2005 8:03 AM |
| Either you haven't noticed the perf hit or have a small DIT that is all
cached or you haven't used your AD as hard as some others then. I have seen
in several companies RAID-1 configs crumble under AD with no idle time and
disk queues going through the ceiling. Exchange can easily peg a DC that has
to go to disk for DIT often and that disk is a mirror.
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Medeiros, Jose
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 11:43 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
In the division I work in we use HP Proliant DL-360's and run only RAID 1 (
Mirrored ) we only use RAID 0+1 ( 10 ) when we require very fast I/O such as
on a heavily used Exchange server or SQL server. Personally I think it is a
waste of resources to run AD on RAID 0+1 ( 10 ), it would not hurt to have
faster disk I/O, but unnecessary.
Sincerely,
Jose Medeiros
ADP | National Account Services
ProBusiness Division | Information Services
925.737.7967 | 408-449-6621 CELL
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Al Lilianstrom
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 8:16 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
Rick Kingslan wrote:
> 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.
We have SATA bricks attached to our SAN. They have some issues that, in
my opinion, make them not quite 'enterprise' ready. A different vendor
just dropped off a rack full of disks (SATA and FC) for us to test as
part of a NAS investigation. The SATA based arrays are slower than the
FC based arrays. Not as much as they used to be but still significantly
slower. That said - we haven't moved anything real important to the SATA
volumes yet. Mainly archives and temp storage for data reprocessing
right now.
al
> 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/
--
Al Lilianstrom
CD/CSS/CSI
Al.Lilianstrom@xxxxxxxx
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/ | | | |
| SteveRochford
Posts:10
| | 11/08/2005 8:54 AM |
| > 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/ | | | |
| AD00000332
Posts:0
| | 11/08/2005 9:47 AM |
| > -----Original Message-----
> From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Steve Rochford
> Sent: 08 November 2005 08:49
> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
> 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??
You mean you don't open your servers up to hoover up the binary code
when it falls off the disk platters?
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/ | | | |
| AD000001369
Posts:0
| | 11/08/2005 12:25 PM |
| I found a MSFT site for planning domain controller capacity. If anyone is
interested, you can find it via the URL
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windowsserver2003/library/DepKi
t/4af3271a-4407-4ca5-9cd5-e05b79046d08.mspx
Edwin
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 3:42 PM
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 :)
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
>(made me go for this solution in the end was that performance was better
>using the native Apple stuff end to end and writing to SATA than it was
>having to translate at some point on the network in order to write to SCSI.
>
>So now I have a nice complicated totally seperate Apple Open Directory
>"Domain" with "trusts" into the Windows Forest so that all the pain of
>making it work falls on me and the network support team here instead of on
>the desktop user.
>
>Which is how it should be after all, and it doesn't do the old resume any
>harm to have this all on there!
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Al Mulnick
>Sent: Mon 07/11/2005 18:53
>To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
>
>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/
>
>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/ | | | |
| AD00000928
Posts:0
| | 11/09/2005 2:49 AM |
| > 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).
Fair enough... :)
-ASB
FAST, CHEAP, SECURE: Pick Any TWO
http://www.ultratech-llc.com/KB/
On 11/8/05, 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.
> > > > >>
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/ | | | |
|
|