If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Shared Storage?
Hi,
I am going to be setting up a couple of linux servers in the near future and these servers will have ever increasing storage needs.. One server will be a web/file server and the other will be a mail server.. I don't want to keep moving the data to bigger drives, I want to have the servers use a shared storage facility that runs RAID and that capacity can be increased as needed.. Preferably using ATA or SATA drives to keep the cost down.. I have looked briefly at things like SAN's but these are far to expensive for our limited budget.. I have also thought of NAS but I am not sure the access over NFS/ethernet will be fast enough.. Even gigabit ethernet may become a bottleneck.. I guess I could put a gig ethernet link between each server and the storage server so each server has a dedicated gig ethernet connection.. Anyway I guess you get the idea about what I am trying to do.. Has anyone setup something similar that didn't cost massive amounts of money?? Anyone got any pointers to sites or products that would point me in the right direction? Thanks |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
WipeOut wrote:
Hi, I am going to be setting up a couple of linux servers in the near future and these servers will have ever increasing storage needs.. One server will be a web/file server and the other will be a mail server.. I don't want to keep moving the data to bigger drives, I want to have the servers use a shared storage facility that runs RAID and that capacity can be increased as needed.. Preferably using ATA or SATA drives to keep the cost down.. I have looked briefly at things like SAN's but these are far to expensive for our limited budget.. What is your budget? You maybe ruling at FC attached storage (no need for a switch) too quickly. A dual ported FC array with software on each host to create a shared filesystem might be in your budget, but it's hard to tell. Also, it would be easier to decide if your worries about NAS performance where justified if we had some idea of what your performance requirements are. That said, if you don't think NAS is fast enough, and SAN is outside your budget, then you've pretty much shot your options ;-) -- Nik Simpson |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Nik Simpson wrote:
WipeOut wrote: Hi, I am going to be setting up a couple of linux servers in the near future and these servers will have ever increasing storage needs.. One server will be a web/file server and the other will be a mail server.. I don't want to keep moving the data to bigger drives, I want to have the servers use a shared storage facility that runs RAID and that capacity can be increased as needed.. Preferably using ATA or SATA drives to keep the cost down.. I have looked briefly at things like SAN's but these are far to expensive for our limited budget.. What is your budget? You maybe ruling at FC attached storage (no need for a switch) too quickly. A dual ported FC array with software on each host to create a shared filesystem might be in your budget, but it's hard to tell. I ruled out FC for a few reasons, I only saw SCSI drives and alone they are to expensive per GB compared to PATA/SATA, The FC HBA's are very steep as well probably costing as much as the whole server, and then there is the switch and the array.. Also, it would be easier to decide if your worries about NAS performance where justified if we had some idea of what your performance requirements are. I know this is a problem area becasue I have not got anything to base my requirements on becasue its a new system.. That said, if you don't think NAS is fast enough, and SAN is outside your budget, then you've pretty much shot your options ;-) Yea, I know.. thats the problem.. I think NAS on a dedicated GigE netowrk and if possible a dedicated link between each server and the NAS is probably the way to go.. For the NAS its self I will probably just use a Linux server and an 8 or 12 channel SATA RAID controller with 3 or 4 drives to start and then add on as needed using LVM for the storage management.. I don't think I will be able to do it much cheaper than that.. Thanks for you comments.. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
WipeOut wrote:
Nik Simpson wrote: WipeOut wrote: Hi, I am going to be setting up a couple of linux servers in the near future and these servers will have ever increasing storage needs.. One server will be a web/file server and the other will be a mail server.. I don't want to keep moving the data to bigger drives, I want to have the servers use a shared storage facility that runs RAID and that capacity can be increased as needed.. Preferably using ATA or SATA drives to keep the cost down.. I have looked briefly at things like SAN's but these are far to expensive for our limited budget.. What is your budget? You maybe ruling at FC attached storage (no need for a switch) too quickly. A dual ported FC array with software on each host to create a shared filesystem might be in your budget, but it's hard to tell. I ruled out FC for a few reasons, I only saw SCSI drives and alone they are to expensive per GB compared to PATA/SATA, The FC HBA's are very steep as well probably costing as much as the whole server, and then there is the switch and the array.. You need to look a bit harder, there are a number of SATA/PATA storage systems with FC interfaces on the market, take a look at www.nexsan.com for an example. Also, if you only have two systems, then you don't need a switch, both systems can be direct attached to the array. Yes, the FC HBAs are still quite pricey, but overall a SATA based FC array and HBAs for two servers isn't that bad, unless your budget is *very* limited. Another possible solution that would get rid of the FC costs is iSCSI, again there are a number of iSCSI arrays that use SATA/PATA drives. I think NAS on a dedicated GigE netowrk and if possible a dedicated link between each server and the NAS is probably the way to go.. For the NAS its self I will probably just use a Linux server and an 8 or 12 channel SATA RAID controller with 3 or 4 drives to start and then add on as needed using LVM for the storage management.. I don't think I will be able to do it much cheaper than that.. My guess from the configuration you've described is that the I/O demands for the two systems are not equal, I'd bet that the mailserver needs I/O performance much more than the webserver, in which case, why not direct attach the storage to the mail server and share some of its capacity with the webserver? As I said previously, giving us an idea of your budget, i.e. how much you are prepared/able to spend would help in suggesting possible solutions. -- Nik Simpson |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Nik Simpson wrote:
You need to look a bit harder, there are a number of SATA/PATA storage systems with FC interfaces on the market, take a look at www.nexsan.com for an example. Also, if you only have two systems, then you don't need a switch, both systems can be direct attached to the array. Yes, the FC HBAs are still quite pricey, but overall a SATA based FC array and HBAs for two servers isn't that bad, unless your budget is *very* limited. Another possible solution that would get rid of the FC costs is iSCSI, again there are a number of iSCSI arrays that use SATA/PATA drives. Thanks for the link, I had not found them.. probably becasue I was looking for suppliers in the UK.. My guess from the configuration you've described is that the I/O demands for the two systems are not equal, I'd bet that the mailserver needs I/O performance much more than the webserver, in which case, why not direct attach the storage to the mail server and share some of its capacity with the webserver? Yes the email server will probably have a higher I/O requirement, but the web server will also be working quite hard in terms of I/O becasue its not just a standard website its a web based application that incorporates file storage.. I was thinking of building the MySQL server with the larger storage capacity and then sharing it with the other two similar to what you have suggested.. The perfect solution would be a NAS or SAN or iSCSI system that I cauld start with 3 drives and then add a 4th and 5th and 6th as I needed them being able to easily extend the array and filesystem.. hotswap would be nice but not really critical.. As I said previously, giving us an idea of your budget, i.e. how much you are prepared/able to spend would help in suggesting possible solutions. Budget I would estimate at around £1500 for the starting system with three 250GB or 300GB drives and expansion capacity to do to 6 or 8 drives.. So I think NAS is about the only option at that budget and even that may be pushing it.. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
WipeOut wrote:
Nik Simpson wrote: You need to look a bit harder, there are a number of SATA/PATA storage systems with FC interfaces on the market, take a look at www.nexsan.com for an example. Also, if you only have two systems, then you don't need a switch, both systems can be direct attached to the array. Yes, the FC HBAs are still quite pricey, but overall a SATA based FC array and HBAs for two servers isn't that bad, unless your budget is *very* limited. Another possible solution that would get rid of the FC costs is iSCSI, again there are a number of iSCSI arrays that use SATA/PATA drives. Thanks for the link, I had not found them.. probably becasue I was looking for suppliers in the UK.. I think you'll find that Nexsan is actually a UK company, though they portray themselves as a US company these days, European HQ is: Nexsan Technologies, Ltd. Units 33-35 Parker Centre, Mansfield Road Derby, DE21 4SZ U.K. Budget I would estimate at around £1500 for the starting system with three 250GB or 300GB drives and expansion capacity to do to 6 or 8 drives.. So I think NAS is about the only option at that budget and even that may be pushing it.. Yup, 1500 quid isn't going to go far, I'd see if you can find a 1U server chassis with four hot swap drive bays, there are a bunch of them around, then add motherboard & controller to taste. -- Nik Simpson |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Nik Simpson wrote:
Budget I would estimate at around £1500 for the starting system with three 250GB or 300GB drives and expansion capacity to do to 6 or 8 drives.. So I think NAS is about the only option at that budget and even that may be pushing it.. Yup, 1500 quid isn't going to go far, I'd see if you can find a 1U server chassis with four hot swap drive bays, there are a bunch of them around, then add motherboard & controller to taste. Yea, Thats what I thought as well.. Maybe it will work as a solution for 12-18 months by which time hopefully the company is off the ground and making some money at which time I can look at the more enterprise level options.. Looks like the 3ware controllers are about the best option for what I am after and like you said a 1U or 2U server.. The rackmount chassis on their own are quite pricey and thats before adding all the internals.. Thanks for your thoughts and comments.. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
WipeOut wrote:
I am going to be setting up a couple of linux servers in the near future and these servers will have ever increasing storage needs.. One server will be a web/file server and the other will be a mail server.. I don't want to keep moving the data to bigger drives, I want to have the servers use a shared storage facility that runs RAID and that capacity can be increased as needed.. Preferably using ATA or SATA drives to keep the cost down.. I have looked briefly at things like SAN's but these are far to expensive for our limited budget.. I have also thought of NAS but I am not sure the access over NFS/ethernet will be fast enough.. Even gigabit ethernet may become a bottleneck.. I guess I could put a gig ethernet link between each server and the storage server so each server has a dedicated gig ethernet connection.. Anyway I guess you get the idea about what I am trying to do.. Has anyone setup something similar that didn't cost massive amounts of money?? Oracle is doing interesting things with firewire (cheap) and cluster file systems. Anyone got any pointers to sites or products that would point me in the right direction? I would say explore the possibilities of firewire. It is low end, but I assume you can mirror over controllers (linux software RAID is generally OK and very fast). Shared devices and software RAID is not OK I think. But I would think Oracle has looked into that. Or just bite and do not share the storage. Or do mirroring over an internal and a firewire drive. Thomas |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"WipeOut" wrote in message ... Hi, I am going to be setting up a couple of linux servers in the near future and these servers will have ever increasing storage needs.. One server will be a web/file server and the other will be a mail server.. I don't want to keep moving the data to bigger drives, I want to have the servers use a shared storage facility that runs RAID and that capacity can be increased as needed.. While Nik has offered good suggestions, he doesn't seem to have ever asked you *why* you want to share the storage between the two servers rather than simply use directly-attached storage with each one. That would give you two separate DAS arrays, each of which could be expanded according to need - and almost certainly the overall least-expensive solution, if there's no actual need to share the storage. - bill |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Todd wrote:
"WipeOut" wrote in message ... Hi, I am going to be setting up a couple of linux servers in the near future and these servers will have ever increasing storage needs.. One server will be a web/file server and the other will be a mail server.. I don't want to keep moving the data to bigger drives, I want to have the servers use a shared storage facility that runs RAID and that capacity can be increased as needed.. While Nik has offered good suggestions, he doesn't seem to have ever asked you *why* you want to share the storage between the two servers rather than simply use directly-attached storage with each one. That would give you two separate DAS arrays, each of which could be expanded according to need - and almost certainly the overall least-expensive solution, if there's no actual need to share the storage. Certainly a good point, truly shared storage does add additional cost and complexity to the solution. My bet is that the shared requirement is that he doesn't really know what the final storage requirements will be and which server will end up requiring the majority of the storage, in which case starting with a shared storage architecture does make life easier in some ways. But given the very small budget indicated in a later post, I'd be inclined to used DAS as well, and probably wouldn't use external arrays at all, just pick a server chassis with plenty of SATA/PATA hotswap drive bays which would give ample room for expansion for some time (you can 2-3U chassis that hold 3-4TB.) At the end of that time it might be time to relook at the issue, but given the lifespan of the typical server these days, its probably not going to happen until he's in the position of having to replace the original servers anyway. -- Nik Simpson |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I want to build a 2.8TB storage array | Yeechang Lee | Homebuilt PC's | 21 | January 12th 05 01:00 AM |
Understanding the IRQ assignments table for my new ASUS A7V880 MB... | G.L. Cross | Asus Motherboards | 4 | August 4th 04 06:52 PM |
Windows Clustering with Compaq F2 Storage array | JB Lee | Compaq Servers | 1 | July 16th 04 11:50 PM |
I think my FX5200 is damaged...........any way to verify? | Dunny Rummy | Nvidia Videocards | 4 | October 28th 03 04:50 PM |
Terabyte Storage By Real-Storage | Real-Storage | Storage & Hardrives | 2 | October 23rd 03 04:18 PM |