Xserve update tomorrow? (28th)
<a href="http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/01/27/04greyzone_1.html"; target="_blank">http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/01/27/04greyzone_1.html</A>;
This and the APC announcement seem a little well-timed. From the incredibly poorly-written "copy-and-paste" article linked above:
"Grey Zone, an extranet software developer Visa International, Terayon and Kelly-Moore on the books, will announce this week a partnership with Sybase to create an enterprise-class application for xtranets running on Xserve."
"In addition, Grey Zone will announce a deal on January 28 to co-market its content management solution...[blah, blah, zzzzz]"
"'We are getting into accounts that would never look at a Mac before this. It is a breakthrough product for Apple for two reasons: the OS is Unix based, and number two because the server form factor is appealing a 1U rack mount server RAID 5 built in,' said Wiley Corbett, CEO of ProVar in Greenville, NC."
After I finish vomiting at lack of punctuation and sentence structure, I think: "Wait a sec, the Xserve doesn't have RAID 5 capability...?"
Alex
This and the APC announcement seem a little well-timed. From the incredibly poorly-written "copy-and-paste" article linked above:
"Grey Zone, an extranet software developer Visa International, Terayon and Kelly-Moore on the books, will announce this week a partnership with Sybase to create an enterprise-class application for xtranets running on Xserve."
"In addition, Grey Zone will announce a deal on January 28 to co-market its content management solution...[blah, blah, zzzzz]"
"'We are getting into accounts that would never look at a Mac before this. It is a breakthrough product for Apple for two reasons: the OS is Unix based, and number two because the server form factor is appealing a 1U rack mount server RAID 5 built in,' said Wiley Corbett, CEO of ProVar in Greenville, NC."
After I finish vomiting at lack of punctuation and sentence structure, I think: "Wait a sec, the Xserve doesn't have RAID 5 capability...?"
Alex
Comments
<a href="http://www.macgurus.com/products/drives/mgscsiraidfaq.php"; target="_blank">FAQ</a>
<a href="http://www.robustdigitalsolutions.com/html/raid-faq.html"; target="_blank">FAQ</a>
Screed
[ 01-27-2003: Message edited by: sCreeD ]</p>
<strong>I think: "Wait a sec, the Xserve doesn't have RAID 5 capability...?"</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well it could mean Xserve raid, on the other hand it could just mean they've hooked up any third-party RAID host. Of which there are plenty.
<strong>Well it could mean Xserve raid, on the other hand it could just mean they've hooked up any third-party RAID host. Of which there are plenty.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, that's not what "1U rack mount server [with] RAID 5 built in" says to me. The Xserve RAID unit is 3U, not to mention a separate product that isn't for sale yet.
Alex
Good observation.
One thing that caught my eye and made me smile, was the statement," After receiving single unit sale orders by companies that just wanted to kick the tires, the company now receives orders for multiple units in the, 20s and 100s." I presume they are talking about Xserve, but the grammer and sentence structure ain't real hot.
[ 01-27-2003: Message edited by: rickag ]</p>
<strong>Why oh why would you run RAID 5 on a database server? I certainly hope they would be running RAID 0+1 with 15,000 rpm SCSI drives!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Cost savings? Hmm, lose one disk with RAID 5 or half my disks with RAID 0+1? I'll take the former if I'm strapped for funds.
<strong>Cost savings? Hmm, lose one disk with RAID 5 or half my disks with RAID 0+1? I'll take the former if I'm strapped for funds.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Problem is performance of a database server is degraded with RAID 5. That is why most SQL software companies suggest putting the dbs on a mirrored pair and transactions logs on a separate mirrored pair rather than a striped RAID 5 setup.
Depends on the use though. High number of transactions dictates a mirrored pair. Lower number of transactions with a high level of uptime requirement and you may think about RAID 5. I would still do mirrored though, since you still have the data, unless both drives take a $hit! :eek:
[ 01-27-2003: Message edited by: Rhumgod ]</p>
Also, if someone can afford RAID 5 why can't they afford RAID 0+1? Granted, minimum 4 drives versus minimum 3 drives...
<strong>Boy oh boy do you take a performance hit with RAID 5. We have a mySQL server running on a RAID 5 array and we are dying to get it off of RAID 5! We max out at around 2500 queries per second on the production server. The disk IO overhead is tremendous!
Also, if someone can afford RAID 5 why can't they afford RAID 0+1? Granted, minimum 4 drives versus minimum 3 drives...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Agreed. Even Microsoft, shocking isn't it, has set rules for years to put SQL on a mirrored pair. Fine tuning an SQL server is not too tough, but I think a lot of admins forget or don't know how. I prefer PostgreSQL at our shop because it has a great deal of tuning capabilities and other features. But that's each admins call. Whatever is comfortable probably will work best in the long run.
But the biggest crime is the IT boss who orders the equipment and skimps on drives, or some other key component. This is a server for Christ's sake! It needs beef. I hate it when IT bosses try and cut corners on things that should be solid.
<strong>Boy oh boy do you take a performance hit with RAID 5. We have a mySQL server running on a RAID 5 array and we are dying to get it off of RAID 5! We max out at around 2500 queries per second on the production server. The disk IO overhead is tremendous!
Also, if someone can afford RAID 5 why can't they afford RAID 0+1? Granted, minimum 4 drives versus minimum 3 drives...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Then again, The Xserve and Xserve RAID are using 4 and 14 independent ATA channels each so I/O chatter is already going to be insane. I don't think they were concerned about this though.
--
I don't know about real big businesses, but not everybody has a mountain of cash to sit on, and they do sometimes have to make cost-cutting decisions. It seems like this is definitely one of those cases.
[quote]"After reviewing numerous platforms, Ott said Terayon went with the Mac platform for its ease of use and price performance, especially in the area of storage where Mac supports less costly IDE drives rather than SCSI which is typical of 1U rack mounted servers."<hr></blockquote>
Hmmm, what happens when one drive fails <img src="embarrassed.gif" border="0">
Yep, bye-bye array. RAID5 is minimum 4 drives for anyone who understands the acronym, CYA!
Eugene...mountains of cash? IDE HDs are cheap! Why pay, say $3200 for a 3 disc RAID5 server, when you could spend $3400 for a 4 disc, 2 array setup of mirrored drives? I cannot think of any admin worth a $hit who thinks saving $200 is good, in lue of performance hits and nightmarish data rescue, not to mention downtime.
Since I don't work at this company, I have no idea how much stress they expect their set-up to handle, but it obviously made sense to them.
EDIT: And what exactly are you talking about with that $200 in savings? I'm not talking about saving money by using a 3 disk set-up instead of a 4-disk set-up. If disk space is a higher priority than performance, who can blame them for using RAID 5 instead of RAID 0+1, especially when lots of disks are involved?
[ 01-28-2003: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
<strong>And I've had managers who actually buy only three drives for their RAID5 arrays. :eek:
Hmmm, what happens when one drive fails <img src="embarrassed.gif" border="0">
Yep, bye-bye array. RAID5 is minimum 4 drives for anyone who understands the acronym, CYA!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Uh, what? A 3-disk RAID5 is just fine. Disk 1: data1, Disk 2: data2, Disk 3: data1 xor data2. What's the problem? RAID5 is n+1. Heck, if you fudge it, you could even do two-disk, but at that point you're really just mirrored.
As for SCSI vs IDE vs RAID5 vs RAID0+1, IDE and RAID5 is WAY, WAY cheaper for archiving large amounts of data (say, 1TB+). Ever priced large SCSI drives? Ouuuuch. And they don't come as big, so you need more enclosures, and that adds up. Fast.
Alex
Hard Disk
Flopy Disk
Zip Disk
Compact Disc?
<strong>
Uh, what? A 3-disk RAID5 is just fine. Disk 1: data1, Disk 2: data2, Disk 3: data1 xor data2. What's the problem? RAID5 is n+1. Heck, if you fudge it, you could even do two-disk, but at that point you're really just mirrored.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Technically, discs 1, 2 and 3 are all striped with parity so there is data and parity on all. But have you ever had a disc fail in a 3 disc RAID5 array...oh God, the horror! Performance is reduced to near nil in rebuild. That's why I would always use 4, since a drive failure is not a catastrophic event, performance wise.
[quote]Originally posted by Alexander:
<strong>As for SCSI vs IDE vs RAID5 vs RAID0+1, IDE and RAID5 is WAY, WAY cheaper for archiving large amounts of data (say, 1TB+). Ever priced large SCSI drives? Ouuuuch. And they don't come as big, so you need more enclosures, and that adds up. Fast.
Alex</strong><hr></blockquote>
While I agree IDE is much cheaper than SCSI, you can get larger SCSI drives. For example, I can get an Apple 120G 7200rpm 2M cache IDE disc for an Xserve for 500.00 while I can get a Compaq 146G Ultra-SCSI3 10k rpm 16M cache disc for 1250.00 - the difference is huge in performance, but if you are buying just for capacity, IDE is fine.