Xserve RAID v2.0

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
So now that Apple has fully embraced the cutting-edge (well, at least the 'hot new trend') vis a vis HDD interface, when do we see the re-vamped xserve RAID to match?!?



Could still be the same chassis & what not, just replace the backplane & RAID controller cards...



And the drives, of course...!



Hmm... With fourteen 250GB HDDs, you could have a 3.5TB striped array as a scratch disk!



;^p
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 29
    vinney57vinney57 Posts: 1,162member
    There is no practical advantage moving to SATA backplane for the X-Serve. No doubt 250 Gig drive assemblies will surface in due course.
  • Reply 2 of 29
    screedscreed Posts: 1,077member
    Please expand on the lack of advantage of the Serial ATA. Aside from cost, I know they're more expensive.



    (Feed me Seymore...)



    The big question: G5? The Xserve was Apple's "modest entry" into the server market. Anyone feel that a beefier 3U unit will come?



    Screed
  • Reply 3 of 29
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sCreeD

    Please expand on the lack of advantage of the Serial ATA. Aside from cost, I know they're more expensive.



    (Feed me Seymore...)



    The big question: G5? The Xserve was Apple's "modest entry" into the server market. Anyone feel that a beefier 3U unit will come?



    Screed




    The true advantage of SATA is the Processor Power that It does NOT consume. I came across an article that I can't seem to find now, but they were testing to see what the advantages were of SATA when they first released. The benchmarks showed that SATA had very little advantage over ATA drives in performance vs. price point they wanted for them. However, It noted there was one advantage that was unmistakably most supremely advantageous. SATA used very little processor Power to run. The number was like anywhere from 4 - 14% I cant remember the exact amount, but it showed how much ATA drives used. which was 44, or 45% of your processors power. I never knew.



    So it seems with regular ATA's you start off running with about half a processor to begin with.



    Not good IMO.
  • Reply 4 of 29
    jaredjared Posts: 639member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MacRonin

    Hmm... With fourteen 250GB HDDs, you could have a 3.5TB striped array as a scratch disk!



    Maxtor just announced a 300GB HDD
  • Reply 5 of 29
    alexanderalexander Posts: 206member
    The current Xserve RAID is an ugly hack. It's really two almost completely independent (I think they share the power supplies) 7-disk RAIDs in one chassis. Maybe Apple will get their act together and come up with a real 14-disk solution.



    Being able to use your own disks would be nice too...that goes for the Xserve as well.
  • Reply 6 of 29
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Alexander

    The current Xserve RAID is an ugly hack. It's really two almost completely independent (I think they share the power supplies) 7-disk RAIDs in one chassis. Maybe Apple will get their act together and come up with a real 14-disk solution.



    Being able to use your own disks would be nice too...that goes for the Xserve as well.




    I hope to your god that you are joking, because if you arn't...



    You are a complete and utter f*ckwit.



    Barto
  • Reply 7 of 29
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Barto

    I hope to your god that you are joking, because if you arn't...



    You are a complete and utter f*ckwit.



    Barto




    I believe what Barto means is "go and have a look at a 'proper' 14-disk system from the Storageworks catalogue at HP, look at the 14 disk shelf (which coincidentally can only take a maximum disk size of around 145GB, and then only HP drives at that).



    Now if you look closely, you'll notice that it too has separate channels for each set of seven disks. This is not a hack, it is an arrangement that ensures good performance."



    But I have a feeling he's right and you're just a complete f*ckwit
  • Reply 8 of 29
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    Quote:

    Redundant Components



    The environment management coprocessor monitors the Xserve RAID enclosure and status of system components. If one of the power supplies fails, the other one can simply take over and power the system alone until the failed module is replaced. If the enclosure gets too hot or a cooling module fails, the environment manager dynamically adjusts the speed of the remaining cooling module to maintain optimum system temperature. The coprocessors themselves are redundant: Both monitor the entire enclosure and record status information on all components, enabling automatic adjustments and remote notifications as needed. If a coprocessor fails, the other one can take over monitoring of the system.




    Quote:

    RAID Controllers



    Xserve RAID features two controllers that independently manage storage operations for a set of up to seven drives. Dual independent controllers allow for simultaneous storage processing, resulting in outstanding performance that scales as capacity increases. These controller modules offer advanced availability and manageability features, including the environment management coprocessor, which manages RAID functions and monitors status and activity of system components.




    Quote:

    Passive Midplane Data Path



    The Xserve RAID architecture is designed to avoid vulnerability to a single point of failure. This means that the failure of any single component can't result in a system wide failure and loss of data availability. With this in mind, Apple built Xserve RAID around a midplane that features a passive data path for highest reliability. The midplane is the central connector between the drives, RAID controllers, power supplies, and cooling modules.



    Most RAID systems depend on the midplane to relay data and instruction sets between drives, and a failure in the midplane can impair data availability. In Xserve RAID, all data passes through the independent drive channels, which are simply held in place by the midplane. This design improves system reliability and protects the availability of stored data.




  • Reply 9 of 29
    vinney57vinney57 Posts: 1,162member
    So, er... did you get that Alexander?



    I didn't realise that SATA required less processor activity - sounds useful. I think it was used in the G5 enclosure because that box ain't going to change for at least 18 months (apart from processors of course) and Apple wanted to get every current tech in at this point.



    The X-Raid wont change though, no point at this time. X-Serve is an interesting question because cooling those 970's seems to be a serious consideration for a a 1U rack unit.
  • Reply 10 of 29
    wmfwmf Posts: 1,164member
    Maybe some people don't need the redundancy and would just like a simple, huge array of 14 disks. (Although in that case you could buy one of these http://www.raid.com/02_01_jetstor_iii_ide_14.html or these http://www.areasys.com/template.asp?...D_SB3160SA.htm )
  • Reply 11 of 29
    alexanderalexander Posts: 206member
    Xserve RAID features two controllers that independently manage storage operations for a set of up to seven drives.



    What's so hard to understand about this? The power supplies are redundant, apparently the monitoring system is redundant (big woop), but each controller can only see seven drives.



    Since you are apparently an Xserve RAID expert, tell me what happens when you take one of your "redundant" controllers out. Ooh, what's that? you just lost seven drives?



    Or, try making a RAID set bigger than 7 drives. Ooh, what's that? You can't?



    Or, mark the right-hand-most drive as a hot spare, and pull out the left-hand-most drive. Ooh, what's that? It doesn't rebuild because it's on the other controller?



    Now try the same thing on a Nexsan ATAboy2. Or perhaps some other real 14-drive RAID.



    If what you really want are two 7-disk RAIDs in one box, fine. But to consider it a 14-disk RAID is a bit of a misnomer. Kind of like saying a 14-disk JBOD is a 14-disk RAID.



    Please don't call people f*ckwits unless you have some clue as to what you're talking about.
  • Reply 12 of 29
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Alexander

    Since you are apparently an Xserve RAID expert, tell me what happens when you take one of your "redundant" controllers out. Ooh, what's that? you just lost seven drives?



    You hot swap it with a replacement from your Xserve RAID parts kit, f*ckwit. In the mean time, you still have seven disks remaining. And when your RAID is in working order, you have more throughput than a single controller.



    You are in fact a double f*ckwit. The Nexsan ATAboy2 is available in single (low-end) or dual (high-end) RAID controllers. You were saying something about having a clue what you're talking about?



    Barto
  • Reply 13 of 29
    jlljll Posts: 2,713member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Alexander

    Since you are apparently an Xserve RAID expert, tell me what happens when you take one of your "redundant" controllers out. Ooh, what's that? you just lost seven drives?



    If you want redundancy you would set up a RAID on each controller and mirror them.





    Quote:

    Originally posted by Alexander

    Or, try making a RAID set bigger than 7 drives. Ooh, what's that? You can't?



    If you want to use all 14 drives you would set up a RAID on each controller and stripe them.
  • Reply 14 of 29
    alexanderalexander Posts: 206member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Barto

    You hot swap it with a replacement from your Xserve RAID parts kit, f*ckwit. In the mean time, you still have seven disks remaining.



    Exactly. It's two RAIDs in one box. Which was my point. I also think it's bordering on false advertising the way Apple consistently mentions "dual controllers!" under a big "Everything is Redundant!" heading.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by Barto

    And when your RAID is in working order, you have more throughput than a single controller.



    Only if your single controller sucks. The abovementioned ATAboy controller has dual SCSI or dual Fibre Channel interfaces on a single controller, if raw interface bandwidth is what you're referring to. If you even know what it is you're referring to.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by Barto

    You are in fact a double f*ckwit. The Nexsan ATAboy2 is available in single (low-end) or dual (high-end) RAID controllers. You were saying something about having a clue what you're talking about?



    Yeah, how is this relevant? It's a single controller, so it's a single 14-drive RAID. Which again, was my point.



    As to why this is a Good Thing, let's assume for a moment that I like to have access to all my data all the time (this is crazy, I know). It strikes me that one controller is less likely to fail than either of two controllers. And even if I absolutely needed redundant controllers, it's nice that that's even an option, which it isn't on the Xserve RAID. Remember, just because there's two of something doesn't mean they're redundant.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by JLL

    If you want redundancy you would set up a RAID on each controller and mirror them.



    If you want to use all 14 drives you would set up a RAID on each controller and stripe them.




    In.......software. I thought there was a point to having hardware RAID here? Like, say, maybe, performance? Or redundancy without wasteful mirroring -- RAID 5? Let's see, would I like to take my nice new "14-drive" RAID and store 7 disks of data on it, or 13? Or 12, and have a hot spare!



    It amazes me that I'm spending the time trying to explain this to you guys.
  • Reply 15 of 29
    shawkshawk Posts: 116member
    Redundancy? For the money of some of the suggested raid alternatives, you could just get a second xServe and xRaid.
  • Reply 16 of 29
    alexanderalexander Posts: 206member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by shawk

    Redundancy? For the money of some of the suggested raid alternatives, you could just get a second xServe and xRaid.



    14x180GB (IBM/Hitachi) Nexsan ATAboy2: $13,100

    14x180GB (IBM/Hitachi) Xserve RAID: $10,999



    Hmmm...nope. Not that cost is the determining factor for people who buy these things.
  • Reply 17 of 29
    alexanderalexander Posts: 206member
    (double post)
  • Reply 18 of 29
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    Exactly. It's two RAIDs in one box. Which was my point. I also think it's bordering on false advertising the way Apple consistently mentions "dual controllers!" under a big "Everything is Redundant!" heading.



    How is that false advertising? The dual controllers add an extra layer of redundancy. You can mirror the two RAIDs, or leave them seperate for the full 2.52TB. Or, you can soft-stripe or span them (I assume this is possible) for a single drive.



    Yeah, how is this relevant? It's a single controller, so it's a single 14-drive RAID. Which again, was my point.



    YOU ARE NOT READING WHAT I'M SAYING



    The ATABoy2F has TWO, count them TWO, ATA RAID controllers (for redundancy and performance). Just like the Xserve RAID. It has two ethernet ports (for redundancy) like the Xserve RAID. It has two fiber channel ports (for performance and redundancy) like the Xserve RAID. The ATABoy2F is almost a mirror image (bad pun) of the Xserve RAID, except for the SCSI controllers.



    Are you high, or just really, really stupid? The Xserve has no single point of failure because of its design. A single RAID controller device does. When an Xserve RAID controller falls over and you NEED 100% uptime in one unit, you can switch to the other 7 disk RAID. Trying to keep 100% uptime with zero redundancy is like pushing a boulder uphill. Also, it is probably cheaper to use dual RAID controllers, as a single 14-channel controller ASIC sounds really expensive. The decreased cost is passed to the end user eventually.



    Barto
  • Reply 19 of 29
    g::mastag::masta Posts: 121member
    *sniggers at the cat-fight*

    sorry . as you were

  • Reply 20 of 29
    shawkshawk Posts: 116member
    One xServe dual processor with 180G / 1x180GB and fiber card will cost $4,500. Two will cost $9,000

    One xServe RAID with 1260G / 7x180GB Ultra ATA will cost $7,500. Two will cost $15,000.

    Cost is the determining factor in a commercial installation but cost includes MIS overhead and potential loss of revenue due to downtime.
Sign In or Register to comment.