We have had some old dell 745n that had sata drives in them in the past. These are the only time we have ever used sata. The performance was terrible and we replaced the sata drives more times in over several years and we ever have with sas/scsi drives.
We are looking to get some new disk backup boxes which we plan to go 600gb sas drives, but might be considering 1tb nearline sata from dell.
I would like to hear from anyone using nearline sata and get feedback on performance and reliability overall. Also if you are using for backups, how many backup jobs are you able to run at the same time before performance drops?
I just got a new server with two SATA drives in it (no hardware raid). Both drives work fine under Linux, BUT I can boot only from the first disk.
The system is Debian Stable, boot loader is GRUB. I've got serial console access, so after power on I can see GRUB menu and escape to the shell. Then:
Code: grub> root (hd1,1)
Error 21: Selected disk does not exist Even when I type "root (hd" and press TAB, grub auto-completes command to "root (hd0,". It doesn't see the second drive!
When Linux has started and I run grub shell inside OS, it does see (hd1).
Planning to buy a server from softlayer, adding a single 300gb 15k scsi drive costs 100$/month and adding 4 250gb sata drives with raid-10 costs 90$/month
Right now i have a busy running forum Running on a Single Xeon 5335 with 4GB of RAM,
single 73GB SCSI 15K. And the site seems running fine most of the time except at peak.
The load sometime goes up to 8 for about 1 hour. So i am looking to upgrade my server.
The next server i am thinking about is
Single C2Q 9300, 8GB of RAM, 1x750GB SATAII as primary drive for for webserver, 1x150GB Raptor 10K to serve MYSQL only.
I wonder if the HDD performance on my current server server with future server be the same of better? Since the future server has better CPU and RAM, the only thing i worry is the HDD performance.
So in short, Single SCSI 15K V.S Combination of SATA + RAPTOR. What do you guy think?
i am using Litespeed as webserver and i also will be using litespeed on future server.
I am trying out all sorts of new drives and raid card adapters because I am finding the 3ware's I have been faithfully using to really suck lately.
We are testing them against areca and adaptec (although I really hate areca from prior bad experience)...
We are using bonnie right now... of course we plan to play around with xen, a couple of domains, prime95, some dd's and then run bonnie too... kind of a stress test.
Since my linux server is out of disk space, I just use cifs to mount some drives from the windows server for people to download files (usually 100-200mb/file).
But I found the performance is not good. For example, I need to wait for a long time before the download process begin. Also, it seems the load average of the server becomes high too.
Is there any suggestion? Should I mount the windows drives through cifs? Or should I change to another server which allow me to add more local harddisks? How about if I mount drives in other linux machine, will the performance better?
about the hd,there are two options, the first one is four 7200rpm sata to do raid 10, the second one is two 10000rpm sata to do raid 1, about the performance, which one will be better?
I'm currently in the process of ordering a new server and would like to throw another $50-$70 at the default SATA II 7k 250 GB to increase performance. The server will host a site similar to WHT (php, mysql, and some forum traffic ).
There are three options I can get for the price:
1. Add another SATA II 7k 250 GB and set up RAID 1 2. Add a 73GB 15k RPM SA-SCSI and put mySQL on it. No RAID. 3. Toss out the SATA II 7k and take two SATA 10k 150 GB instead. Put mySQL on one of them. No RAID.
Please keep in mind that the question is budget-related (I know I can get more if I spend an extra $200 but that's not what I want ). Which of the above will make me happiest?
1- i did Os Reload with new Hard drive for "home" 2- data "backups" drive lost
3- replaced the old home drive as "/old drive"
4- " /old drive " is now the secondry drive in my server and it has the all sites usres and evry thing
5- what i need , to trasfer, copy this sites from " /old drive " to "home"
but data center said
The /olddrive/home directory contains the contents that were previously in the /home directory. You can copy files from this directory to any other directory on your server.
The command to copy files in the UNIX environment is the "cp" command.
The user directories in /olddrive/home directory contain the web page files for the users. However, simply copying the contents over will not recreate the users or domain entries in DNS/httpd. If you wish these back you will need to recreate them manually or restore them from backups.
I am using dreamhost host 3 of my web sites and 1 blog. Dreamhost is great, offers alot space and bandwidth.
but I think they are oversellling their space, sometimes it gets really slow. (overselling ? ok, I dont really know, but sometimes its really slow, and most my asian readers said need to refresh to load the page. I am wondering if theres a way to check if they are overselling or not.)
I am thinking about buying vps, even tho, I still got 5 month left with dreamhost.
I found 2 vps companies are highly recommanded on this forum, JaguarPC and LiquidWeb.
theres already a post compared both companies in terms of price and service. I say I will pick JagarPc, cuz, its basic plan just 20 USD, and htey got promotion now, its even cheaper. and basic Liquidweb vps plan is 60 bucks.
I am wondering why Jagarpc is so cheap , are they overselling? how can we check if they are overselling.
I found a few posts saying how good jaguarPc is. and they are not overselling, but those members just signed up this month, and only have 1-3 posts. I cannot really trust those new members.
Can someone share their experience with JaguarPC? compare JaguarPc performance and liquidweb performance. antoher question is switch from dreamhost to JaguarPC basic vPS plan, will performance gets better?
last question: VPS account allows 3 IP, 3ip = 3 domains? if not, how many domains can I have?
The server is displaying these errors when I tried to do an FSCK: Bad inode IO ext3-fs error (device(8,3)) IO Failure
I am having a new primary installed and old primary set as 2nd drive. I need to recover the cpanel domain accounts from this 2nd drive after I mount it with the method below:
mkdir /backup mount /dev/sdb1 /backup
However, how do I actually recover these accounts in an automated process via whm? I've done this before with the same matter (corrupt primary drive, mount as 2nd, etc) but cannot exactly remember the proper steps.
I just purchased a brand new 10K 150GB drive. How can I take an exact copy of my current drive and transfer everything over to the new drive? I think I need to create a snapshop, or mirror it somehow.
What software will do this? I was told trueimage, but its very pricy, is there anything else?
I have a dedicated box and I started getting Input/output errors today.
I tried: # fsck fsck 1.40-WIP (14-Nov-2006) e2fsck 1.40-WIP (14-Nov-2006) /dev/hda2: recovering journal fsck.ext3: unable to set superblock flags on /dev/hda2
then I tried: # fsck -a -t ext3 /dev/hda2 fsck 1.40-WIP (14-Nov-2006) /dev/hda2: recovering journal fsck.ext3: unable to set superblock flags on /dev/hda2
My data is backed up, so was going to ask for a reimage, but is this an indication of bad hardware? Should I ask for a replacement drive? Is there anything else I should try on my own before going to the host?
I have a Win2K3 server which has 2 hard drives. I was considering backup options and I thought that I might try mirroring Drive A ==> Drive B. I would think that, then, if Drive A has a hardware failure, I could simply switch Drive B into the Primary slot (A) and the server would continue to hum along as nothing has happened. This would reduce the downtime, hopefully.
I have 3 questions.
1. Is this idea practical (will it work)? 2. What is a good software program to use fto handle the mirroring? 3. Any considerations, warnings, technical advice in regard to this method?
I have ordered a dedicated server SATA Xeon but got IDE Xeon. Should I contact my datacenter to change the server or is ide and sata the same thing and it does not make a real difference.
I currently have a Dell Poweredge 2650 from a few years back, it is running...
2x Xeon 2.4ghz 512K 3GB DDR266 RAM 1x73GB SCSI
Back in the day this system cost $2000, now it's not worth close to that.
So my plans were to dump this bad boy as an SQL server, seeing it has the SCSI backplane and 3GB of RAM, and SQL usually doesn't need as much CPU as a web server.
Now my question, would it be better to use this server or would it be better to build a cheap Core 2 Duo with a RAID0 array with a few SATA drives?
Before you start going off on RAID0, it doesn't matter to me because I am using clustering/failover so data will not be lost and no downtime will be received if the array fails.
Basically what I want to know, is it worth it to keep this server and build upon it or would it be better to sell this server and look into spending an extra few hundred to build a new system with SATA RAID.
I'm going by price/performance rather than reliability as I am using failover to let you know once again .
To work on an HP ProLiant DL360/380. All I know is they are SCSI U320 drive bays, or that is the type of drive they take. Can anyone provide any insight on what may work? We are trying to get a more cost effective way to get more storage into a server. The largest SCSI drive I can find is 300GB for $200. You can get 2TB drives for that much these days.
I've got a 'virgin' machine from Nocster running CentOS 5, including a SATA drive (shows up as "SCSI").
It looks like it'll be a straight-forward install [url], but I wondered if anyone has had this exact combination before and if there are any problems I should expect? Given that it's a dedicated machine I don't have physical access to, I'm slightly paranoid about screwing up.
