Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?
-
@dustinb3403 said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
These servers are 100% SSD, fortunately/unfortunately?
Ok than OBR5 the entire thing, and install Hyper-V to the array. . .
Different sized drives.
-
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@jaredbusch said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@dashrender said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
The problem you run into here is that Hyper-V should be put on it's own drives. So you'll need another two drives in RAID 1 to run Hyper-V from, OR you could install Hyper-V on the current RAID1, and assuming there is enough storage space left over on that RAID 1, make the VM VHD for the boot portion of the VM, and on the RAID 0/5 make another VHD mapped into the same VM for the data.
Close, I never even bother with a RAID for Hyper-V. I put it on a SATA drive instead of an array drive.
I think since it's so small I can even just throw it on an SD card, right? These servers have slots for that ( then give the datacenter a back up SD card in case the first one fails ).
Not as easy as you would think. It is not a fully support install t is why I use a SATA drive. The 620 should have an unused SATA port inside, but it may or may not have power for it without a cable being purchased. Cannot recall off the top of my head.
-
@dashrender said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@dustinb3403 said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
These servers are 100% SSD, fortunately/unfortunately?
Ok than OBR5 the entire thing, and install Hyper-V to the array. . .
Different sized drives.
The array should still support it, just the capacity would be based on the smallest drive.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
These servers are 100% SSD, fortunately/unfortunately?
Ok than OBR5 the entire thing, and install Hyper-V to the array. . .
Read an article, I think by Scott, a few years ago that said OBR10 was the OB way to go in almost all cases, may be remembering that wrong. Scott/all, if I'm going to OBR the entire box, is 5 a better option than 10?
-
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@dustinb3403 said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
These servers are 100% SSD, fortunately/unfortunately?
Ok than OBR5 the entire thing, and install Hyper-V to the array. . .
Read an article, I think by Scott, a few years ago that said OBR10 was the OB way to go in almost all cases, may be remembering that wrong. Scott/all, if I'm going to OBR the entire box, is 5 a better option than 10?
OBR5 makes sense when you are using SSD. OBR10 can make sense if you need more IOPS, but you half your available storage.
-
@dashrender said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@dustinb3403 said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
These servers are 100% SSD, fortunately/unfortunately?
Ok than OBR5 the entire thing, and install Hyper-V to the array. . .
Different sized drives.
To be clear, only the 1TB drives are purchased thusfar, was planning on buying the cheaper/smaller 2x 256GB 850 Pros expressly to install the serverware and host OS on. I don't have to go that route.
-
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@dustinb3403 said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
These servers are 100% SSD, fortunately/unfortunately?
Ok than OBR5 the entire thing, and install Hyper-V to the array. . .
Read an article, I think by Scott, a few years ago that said OBR10 was the OB way to go in almost all cases, may be remembering that wrong. Scott/all, if I'm going to OBR the entire box, is 5 a better option than 10?
Because math - you can use RAID 5 on SSD and be fine. OBR10 is mostly meant for spinning drives due to failure situations, large storage pools, and performance.
-
-
@dashrender said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@dustinb3403 said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
These servers are 100% SSD, fortunately/unfortunately?
Ok than OBR5 the entire thing, and install Hyper-V to the array. . .
Read an article, I think by Scott, a few years ago that said OBR10 was the OB way to go in almost all cases, may be remembering that wrong. Scott/all, if I'm going to OBR the entire box, is 5 a better option than 10?
Because math - you can use RAID 5 on SSD and be fine. OBR10 is mostly meant for spinning drives due to failure situations.
Gotcha, thank you!
-
A good option here might be to remove the two 256 GB drives and replace them with one or two 1 TB drives. Replacing them with one, will mean you can get OBR5 and loose no space from that array, but you will have to give up some of that space, probably around 100 GB to Hyper-V and the OS install for your VM. If you can afford to loose that from your storage capacity (you would still have 5 TB - 100 GB = 4.9 TB for storage).
-
@dashrender said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
Because math - you can use RAID 5 on SSD and be fine. OBR10 is mostly meant for spinning drives due to failure situations.
Not really.... sort of.
RAID10 came into existence because of drive failures. But it does offer performance benefits as well. So based on the requirements of Storage vs Performance does this need to be considered.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@dashrender said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
Because math - you can use RAID 5 on SSD and be fine. OBR10 is mostly meant for spinning drives due to failure situations.
Not really.... sort of.
RAID10 came into existence because of drive failures. But it does offer performance benefits as well. So based on the requirements of Storage vs Performance does this need to be considered.
updated post
-
@dashrender said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@dustinb3403 said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
These servers are 100% SSD, fortunately/unfortunately?
Ok than OBR5 the entire thing, and install Hyper-V to the array. . .
Read an article, I think by Scott, a few years ago that said OBR10 was the OB way to go in almost all cases, may be remembering that wrong. Scott/all, if I'm going to OBR the entire box, is 5 a better option than 10?
Because math - you can use RAID 5 on SSD and be fine. OBR10 is mostly meant for spinning drives due to failure situations, large storage pools, and performance.
Are sequential reads WAY, WAY, WAY slower w/ Raid 5 than Raid 0 and Raid 10 though? That's what it's looking like in my initial benchmarking ( still underway ).
Looks like things are more than twice as fast w/ 0 and 10 in the first test using Crystal DiskMark.
-
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@dashrender said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@dustinb3403 said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
These servers are 100% SSD, fortunately/unfortunately?
Ok than OBR5 the entire thing, and install Hyper-V to the array. . .
Read an article, I think by Scott, a few years ago that said OBR10 was the OB way to go in almost all cases, may be remembering that wrong. Scott/all, if I'm going to OBR the entire box, is 5 a better option than 10?
Because math - you can use RAID 5 on SSD and be fine. OBR10 is mostly meant for spinning drives due to failure situations, large storage pools, and performance.
Are sequential reads WAY, WAY, WAY slower w/ Raid 5 than Raid 0 and Raid 10 though? That's what it's looking like in my initial benchmarking ( still underway ).
Looks like things are more than twice as fast w/ 0 and 10 in the first test.
RAID0 gives you N-Drives as much read and write performance, and sacrifices no storage amount for it.
RIAD10 gives you N-Drives Read performance and N/2 Write performance.
-
RAID 5 gives you N-1 Read and worse for write.
-
@dashrender said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
RAID 5 gives you N-1 Read and worse for write.
No, all RAID gives you N reads.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@dashrender said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
RAID 5 gives you N-1 Read and worse for write.
No, all RAID gives you N reads.
Is the explanation for slower reads for Raid 5 because it's doing other stuff on the drives while trying to read ( like writing the parity data ), or should it be simliar to a Raid 0 of the same number of drives?
-
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@scottalanmiller said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@dashrender said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
RAID 5 gives you N-1 Read and worse for write.
No, all RAID gives you N reads.
Is the explanation for slower reads for Raid 5 because it's doing other stuff on the drives while trying to read ( like writing the parity data ), or should it be simliar to a Raid 0 of the same number of drives?
Strangely enough on this hardware a Raid 0 of just 2 of these SSDs dramatically outperforms a Raid 5 of 5 of the same drives for reads in my first test ( 500 MiB ), as in 1 GB/s faster Seq Q32TI and almost 3 times faster Seq in Crystal, will post the full results in a sec.
-
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@scottalanmiller said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@dashrender said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
RAID 5 gives you N-1 Read and worse for write.
No, all RAID gives you N reads.
Is the explanation for slower reads for Raid 5 because it's doing other stuff on the drives while trying to read ( like writing the parity data ), or should it be simliar to a Raid 0 of the same number of drives?
Strangely enough on this hardware a Raid 0 of just 2 of these SSDs dramatically outperforms a Raid 5 of 5 of the same drives for reads, as in 1 GB/s faster Seq Q32TI and almost 3 times faster Seq in Crystal, will post the full results in a sec.
THat's a controller problem, not a RAID problem. That means that the controller is oversaturated.
-
RAID is RAID, the math is trivial. What gets hard is figuring out what is wrong with a controller, when a RAID implementation is bad, when a cache is kicking in and so forth.
