• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by slymaster

  1. slymaster

    SCSI RAID controller went mad

    HamaZ, perahps your controller is due for retirement ? A controller that old does not owe you anything at this point in time. According to your post, you are running a very old controller, that has had a history of problems, and now you are enraged that it failed again ? The purpose of RAID is to increase your reliability, and maybe even performance too, if you have the budget to do it right. In your case, a single modern ATA/SATA drive will likely increase both your reliability, performance, and capacity all in one shot. Anyway, I hope you did not lose anything important - data loss is never fun. Cheers !
  2. I think Elandril's response (post# 73) seems to make the most sense of all. I have 5 Raid Edition drives in use in the office, 4 intended for raid sets ( 2 simple mirror sets), and one is an extra that I initially intended to use as a hot spare, but then changed my mind and installed it in my desktop as an extra drive, (standalone, no raid). I am currently using the standalone RE drive for some heavy database testing. The drive is often in very heavy use for hours at a time. The drive is powered on 24/7, but is not used much outside of business hours, as it is only in use for testing right now. So far, the single drive has worked just fine. I was initially concerned about the TLER, but I was skeptical that it would really be a problem. How often do good drives get stuck on a sector for more than seven seconds anyway, with or without TLER ? I have not owned the drives long enough for my experience to be statistically significant, nor is my sample size very large, but my experience has been positive.
  3. slymaster

    The Newest SCSI's

    The chart seems to indicate that this is a raid 0 set being tested, but with no indication of how many drives. Without knowing how many drives, the information is meaningless.
  4. slymaster

    PCAnywhere vs Remote Desktop

    Just about anything works better than PC Anywhere. Remote desktop is far superior.
  5. slymaster

    Norton Ghost vs Acronis Trueimage

    Good point. I have seen hundreds of BSOD's over the years, but the system usually lived to blue screen again another day.
  6. slymaster

    Intel or AMD?

    I have been using VMware extensively for a long time now, both for testing and training purposes, and for live server consolidation. Ram is definitely the most important thing for VMware, once you have a certain minimum CPU. The machine that I use as a live server is a P3-733, with 512 MB of Ram. It runs Win2k Pro as a host OS, with the following guest operating systems : Win2k Server (160 MB Ram), Win 98 (32 MB Ram), and NT Server 4.0 (64 MB Ram). The host machine is a little stressed for Ram (the bios will not allow more than 512), but it is a great way to cut down on space used in the server room. All the legacy apps run on one box. The system is stable as a rock. My main testing machine for VMware is an Athlon XP 2500+ with 1 GB of Ram. It can easily run 3 or 4 guest operating systems with excellent performance. Unless you have a lot of clients connecting to the virtual machines to keep them busy, a single fast CPU will likely be fine. You mentioned that you would use Windows 2003 Server, Debian Linux, and perhaps FreeBSD. What apps do you plan to run with the guest operating systems ? Unless you really load the guests heavily, your current rig should handle that with no problems.
  7. slymaster

    3 disks for an array

    It sounds like either configuration will work fine for you. The mirror with hot spare will provide a lower chance of downtime due to drive failure than the raid 5, but the raid 5 is still a pretty good redundant solution. With the hot spare, if a single drive fails, you will be back to a redundant state within an hour. With the raid 5, a single drive failure will force you to order another HD, (I doubt you will want to wait for the warranty replacement), so the earliest you will likely be back to a redundant state is the next day, maybe even two or three days later if the drive fails on a Friday. If you are really confident with your storage space requirements, I would go with the mirrored setup - you won't have to worry about HD failure for a long time. You already have a spare drive you may never need. If you are running a database without online backup capability, you may want to consider a third option - a mirror set, and then an extra single drive. For backup purposes, you could back your database up disk to disk very quickly to the third disk, than your tape could grab a backup from the spare drive. This will allow for a quicker disk to disk backup than a single raid set will, resulting in less down time. If a drive fails in the mirror set, you can still use the third drive to rebuild the mirror if you choose, (manual intervention will be required), and you will have to reconfigure your backup solution while you wait for a replacement drive. Good Luck !
  8. slymaster

    Reiser4 has been released!

    I am certainly interested in trying out Reiser 4. My main area of interest is performance. If the performance claims of the developer turn out to be true (I would like to see some benchmarks on SR before I truly believe), than Reiser 4 has the potential to be a hot commodity. From the benchmarks on the reiser site, it appears that Reiser 4 is often competitive (and sometimes quicker) than ext2, which has no journaling features. Ext3, JFS, and XFS are often left in the dust. If Reiser 4 can provide high performance and high integrity, it is certainly worth a look. How long will we have to wait before hard drive technology can provide so significant an increase ? To not look at Reiser4 because of problems Reiser 3 had in the past seems silly to me. Anyone ever used NT4 in the early days ? When I first started at my current job, we had a fairly new installation of NT4 (no service packs). I learned an awful lot about restoring from tape in those days. Life was hell until SP3 was released, at which point there was sanity. Microsoft is not the only culprit - if you spend enough time working in the IT field, almost all vendors (hardware and software) will be guilty of screw-ups from time to time. The message is that early adopters should beware. No need to switch the production servers over today, but if you have the luxury of a test environment, why not give it a go ? The worst case is that it fails to live up to expectations, but on the flip side, we all may be blown away by how good it is. Only time will tell, but it certainly is worth following.
  9. slymaster

    Tcq, Raid, Scsi, And Sata

    It is interesting that TCQ seems to be a disadvantage at low queue depths. Perhaps the optimal solution for TCQ enabled drives would be to have the controller monitor the queue depth and serve requests on first-in first-out basis until the queue depth justifies turning on TCQ. Are there any good utilities to monitor queue depth during real-world usage ? It would seem that TCQ is a no-brainer on a server with a large number of users, but what about a server with only 10 users. If performance is of the utmost importance, it might be better in this case to choose some Raptors with a non TCQ controller over a SCSI solution. The Win2k performance monitor has an object called Current Disk Queue Length. Is that an accurate representation ? This was a good article - not many people ask these kinds of question.
  10. slymaster

    Looking For Advice On Encrypting Hd

    Hi TwoJ. I also am interested in encrypting entire hard drives. I don't have any experience to share as of yet, unfortunately. I would like to encrypt the entire hd of notebook machines, as they are a much higher risk to be stolen. I am not looking for encryption that is uncrackable, merely difficult enough to protect the data from the garden variety thief. If the data is unencrypted, even an unsophisticated thief might realize that the data is worth more to a competitor than the black market value of the hardware. With a hard drive full of documents, it would not take much research to find out who those competitors are. If the drive was encrypted to the level where a cluster of high end machines would take 2-3 months to crack it, I would guess that the thief would sell the notebook and get on with it. I researched Drivecrypt Plus Pack, and it seems interesting for what I wish to do. Was performance your only problem with it ? I imagine I could tolerate the performance hit, as the users would never be accessing more than a few megabytes at a time, and the minimum machine would be a P3-800. I would also be concerned about reliability - did you ever have problems booting your machine ?I would guess that if the notebook was stolen while it was powered on and logged in, someone could still easily download the data to an external hard drive - does Drivecrypt have any way to address this issue ? This is not my top priority right now, so it will likely be several weeks before I begin experimenting myself. If you are still searching for a solution then, I will let you know how my testing works out.