Is the SAS6iR on a Dell R200 under Linux a real hardware RAID solution or is it a fake-raid setup where the CPU ends up doing all the work? We are just looking at some and deciding if we should go with the onboard or put in a 3Ware 9xxxx
View 5 Replieswe have lots of web sites and traffic
our company needs real high bandwidth
we worked with layeredtech but it was not enough, too
do you have any advice? a real datacenter with real 1 or 2 gig real internet connection?
what is the real meaning of RDNS or the real function?
Because i have an account with reseller, then i need to hide the Name servers of a shared IP into my own name server IP.
Quote:
Today we are going to conduct a detailed study of RAIDability of contemporary 400GB hard drives on a new level. We will take two "professional" drives from Seagate and Western Digital and four ordinary "desktop" drives for our investigation. The detailed performance analysis and some useful hints on building RAID arrays are in our new detailed article.
[url]
does mod_cache use real disk space or real memory to locate "cache"? I mean if i use mod_cache, does my vps/server will use more disk space/memory?
Quote:
mod_cache implements an RFC 2616 compliant HTTP content cache that can be used to cache either local or proxied content. mod_cache requires the services of one or more storage management modules. Two storage management modules are included in the base Apache distribution:
if anyone knew of anything that maybe could be done to limit this band-width stealing by AVG or are we just going to have to live with this?
[url]
how is this possible?
[url]
how can i fake the kernel version?
View 5 Replies View RelatedI as well as several of our customers have received the following e-mail today. It appears to be a fake e-mail being sent out from security.admin@verisign.com
The e-mail reads:
"Dear FDIC valued Members
Regarding our new security regulations, as a part of our yearly maintenance we have provided a security guard script in the attachment.
So, to secure your websites, please use the attached file and (for UNIX/Linux Based servers) upload the file "guard.php" in: "./public_html" or (for Windows Based servers) in: "./wwwroot" in your site.
If you do not know how to use it, you can use the following instruction:
For Unix/Linux or Windows based websites that use PHP/CGI/PERL/ASP:
1) Download the attachment named "guard.php"
2) Login to your site Control panel.
3) Open "File Manager" window.
4) Go through "Public_html" or "htdocs" (for UNIX/Linux Based servers), but for Windows Based server, please Go through "wwwroot" directory.
5) Choose "Upload Files"
6) Upload the file "guard.php"
7) Check its URL too [url], if it is ok
Thank you for using our services and products. We look forward to providing you with a unique and high quality service.
[url]
There is an attached file called guard.php -- I've attempted to read it, but it appears to be compiled. At this time I am unsure of what the file actually does. Has anyone else received a similar e-mail? Does anyone know what the guard.php file actually does?
When will that beautiful day come when web hosting companies stop to put up fake storage limits? I am so surprised that all of these actions are legal, and if they aren't legal then I don't understand why there isn't move governance over these things.
I mean, you have a nice and popular company like Media Temple, yet you glance at their usage policy and see this:
Customer may not use hosting account as a remote storage server only. 75% of customer's content files stored on Provider's server must have associated HTML, or PHP files inside the account linking to the content stored on that account.
What is that all about? What kind of legal website would actually use 75GB of storage.
Why doesn't their 100GB limit package have a cheezy star beside it that clearly says "hey, actually you only get 25GB of storage, the rest is just BS and we'll never actually let you use it". What if you buy a can of paint and they say "well, you cannot use this paint for your house, you may only use 25% of it on your house and the rest on your fence". Yea, sounds like a great deal, now I have to buy 4X more paint.
And to counter-act that usage policy, what if I just have an PHP page that is a dynamic directory listing? Isn't that, in essence, a PHP page to which all of the directory content is associated?
Aside from all that, yes I understand the marketing value of big numbers and giving people 100's and 1000's of GB of supposed storage – but how in the hell is that legal?
These companies are charging people for something that is unattainable. Because in 99% of the cases, if you actually use all your disk space, your account will be terminated without notice for some BS reason or because you are using too many processor resources.
Well if you KNOW that using 100GB of disk space will use too many other server resources, why are you selling that quantity of space? Again, it's not actually being sold, it's an illusion, and I absolutely don't understand how it's legal.
Another example would be like, selling a car that can go 500 KM/h but really by the time you reach 400 KM/h you are already out of gas, so you'll never really get to 500 KM/h.
Can they really advertise the car as having a top speed of 500 KM/h? Come on...
Oh and I am not a bitter customer of Media Temple or any other overselling web hosting service, it's just a trend that has been on the rise for some years now and it's really bugging me that somehow all these lies are legal. Next up is "unlimited" web hosting, except you are limited by everything except storage... so yea, not really unlimited. Again... legal?
I am very unhappy with Reliablesite. Their servers are down since 48 hours and I feel down. There is no response from the support team. The same happened to the other server as well some days back and they are continously having having hardware issue.
I am just wondering what happened to the marketing blurb that reads:
"Fully Redundant: More uptime starts with multiple backbones of Tier 1 only providers to fail-over servers which kick in instantly."
Where are these fail-over servers and why did they not "kick in instantly" when everything went FUBAR?
The control panel is now just giving the error:
Bad Request (Invalid Hostname)
All of my domains have been down for over 48 hours with either a server error message appearing or an IIS7 "Sites currently being restored. Please see bear with us." message. Every database I have now returns the error message "login failed" for each user as well.
This is an unacceptable amount of downtime, I will now have to list every domain I own and create new users for every database. I find this quite disturbing that I now have an extra amount of work put on me for something that should have been handled by the "fail-over" servers which don't seem to have kicked in at all.
I think they are faking their advertisement of "fail-over" and they should change their name to "Unreliablesite.net".
I think this company's English skills are a bit off when they brag about their "Fully Redundant fail-over servers". Judging from their performance, I think what they were actually trying to say is that their servers are "fell over" servers. You know, the kind of servers keep falling over...again and again.
Sad part about it is they actually believe they're helping people with their lame attempts to explain what the problems are. They are so wrapped up in "damage control" they think their customers are complete idiots and will believe anything they post.
Posts like "25% of the sites should now be working. MySQL and MS SQL databases will be coming back up soon as well. We estimate that the entire move will be complete at 12PM EST June 25th."
What does 25 persent of the sites mean or tell me about when my sites will be up. Twenty-five percent of what?!! Well that was 36 hours ago when they made that claim and many others and they still both down.
All I know is I keep getting Emails from support reading, "It should be fixed now".
Simply accessing the URL reveals that the problem is indeed not fixed. Just a little bit of checking and investigation can go a long way. RSNET, this is getting ridiculous. Please DO NOT send me anymore "it is fixed" Emails until it the problem is actually fixed. I have been patient as and as understanding as I can possibly be through the latest string of outages but my patience is wearing thin. PLEASE just get the sites running again and soon.
Ipower - blatant over selling, trying to kick me off with fake TOS
I am currently being ignored on live chat with Ipower.
They issued me with possibly the stupidest TOS violation imaginable. They claimed that I am using my web space for storing files which is not allowed - it must be site content. The links to the files are public on the site. They have admitted, actually admitted, that the TOS is fake. Yet they have just suspended my directories.
The real reason is because they are over selling disk space. Our contract gives me 2 Tb and I am daring to use 25% of that space. They have told me - straight out - they want me off their server because I am using too much of what I paid for.
Why do web hosts like Ipower believe that they can just ignore the law like this? It is false advertising, fraud and breach of contract. They have expressed their contempt for the law in plain English. What is it with these people? Why must I sue them to have this blatantly stupid matter resolved?
A week ago i came across a installation of a fake paypal site on a account i am using on cpanel. The site had the latest wordpress installed on it with nothing else.
I would like to know;
How is it possible to access the account to install the paypal site and how can a person prevents this in the future. i came acros the site by accident and cant check on all my clients sites all the time.
Any advice appreciated
Its with exim .
my server send alot of fake emails
31017 titus 18 0 11188 1956 624 D 2 0.0 0:03.98 exim
31132 titus 18 0 11180 1812 504 D 2 0.0 0:00.08 exim
30964 titus 18 0 11180 1812 504 D 1 0.0 0:05.78 exim
30971 titus 18 0 11180 1948 624 D 1 0.0 0:05.58 exim
30981 titus 18 0 11184 1812 504 D 1 0.0 0:05.41 exim
31049 titus 18 0 11192 1812 504 D 1 0.0 0:02.16 exim
30946 titus 18 0 11188 1952 628 D 1 0.0 0:05.96 exim
30951 titus 18 0 11176 1804 504 D 1 0.0 0:05.83 exim
30976 titus 18 0 11180 1952 624 D 1 0.0 0:05.40 exim
31027 titus 18 0 11212 1816 504 D 1 0.0 0:03.76 exim
31044 titus 18 0 11188 1812 504 R 1 0.0 0:02.13 exim
31064 titus 18 0 11180 1808 504 D 1 0.0 0:00.50 exim
31096 titus 18 0 11196 1824 504 R 1 0.0 0:00.45 exim
31102 titus 18 0 11188 1824 504 D 1 0.0 0:00.42 exim
30942 titus 18 0 11184 1952 624 D 1 0.0 0:06.05 exim
31036 titus 18 0 11188 1964 624 D 1 0.0 0:02.22 exim
I was checking my error_log today and found thousands of 404 errors for these 2 files:
/flashtalking/ftlocal.html
/doubleclick/DARTIframe.html
I assume they are file requests made from ads on the site.
Right now I've just added those directories and files to appease the error logs, but can I fake their existence somehow without having to clutter up my file structure?
Is Motherboard RAID as good as a dedicated PCI-E card? I am guessing a dedicated card is the best option, though costs more.
We are looking at buying a barebones server from Supermicro. It features an onboard RAID controller which supports RAID 0, 1, 5 & 10 - but for some strange reason it will only support RAID 5 if you use Windows. Here is a link to the page detailing the RAID features.
[url]
We are going to be running Linux, CentOS 5.1, so we will only have the choice of RAID 0, 1 or 10. This isn't an issue, as having RAID 10 on 4x SAS (15k) drives will be fine for speed and stability. What is an issue is would this RAID controller be as fast or reliable compared to a dedicated PCI-E card? If it can only use RAID 5 in windows, does that suggest this controller is too reliant on software? It would be a nightmare to suffer downtime and data loss because the controller couldn't hack it during a drive failure, or one day it decided to bugger up the array when rebooting.
So that leads me to looking at this card, this looks very good for what we need. Are adaptec a reliable brand? I've seen it advertised for £200, which is a good price.
[url]
This card features RAID 5 and 6, would RAID 6 be better than RAID 10 for redundancy, or is it too slow to bother with? Also it seems to have a battery module available for it, what does this achieve? Cos surely if the power dies the hard drives and motherboard can't run off this little battery, or does it just help the controller stay alive long enough with some hard drive information in its memory if the power goes out during a rebuild?
I could try the Software-RAID 5 of the EQ9 Server of Hetzner.
Does anyone here has experiences, how fast a hardware raid 5 compared against the software-Raid 5 is?
The i7-975 should have enough power to compute the redundnacy on the fly, so there would be a minimal impact on performance. But I have no idea.
I want to run the server under ubuntu 8.04 LTS x64.
On it a vitualisation like VMware the IO-Load could get really high.
So I've just got a server with 2xSATA raid 1 (OS, cpanel and everything in here) and 4xSCSI raid 10 (clean).
Which one do you guys think will give the best performance:
1. Move mysql only to 4xSCSI raid 10
2. Move mysql and home folder to 4xSCSI raid 10
I am in a somewhat complicated situation... I wanted to order a custom server with hardware 3Ware RAID controller but after over a month of waiting I was told the HW RAID controller, as well as any other 3Ware controller they tried, does not work with the motherboard used in the server from Fujitsu-Siemens and that they simply got a reply from FS that the controller is not certified to work with their motherboard.
So although I'd prefer a HW raid, I am forced to either choose a different webhost or setup a software RAID. The problem is, I haven't done that before and am somewhat moderately...scared
I have read a lot of the info about SW RAID on Linux that I could find through Google but there are some questions unanswered still. So I thought that perhaps some of the more knowledgeable WHT members could help me with this problem...
The server specs will be:
Core2Duo E6600 (2.4Ghz), 2GB RAM, 6-8x* 250GB SATA II HDDs, CentOS 4.4 or SuSe, DirectAdmin
* I prefer 8 HDDs (or actually 9) over 6 but I am not sure if their server chassis can hold that many HDDs, I am awaiting answer from them. They don't have any other drives beside the 250GB ones so I am limited to those.
The preferred SW RAID setup is to have everything in RAID 10, except for the /boot partition which has to be on RAID-1 or no RAID I believe, plus one drive as hot spare (that would be the 9th drive). I am quite sure they will not do the setup for me but will give me access to KVM over IP and a Linux image preinstalled on the first HDD so that I'll have a functional system that needs to be upgraded to RAID-10.
How do I do that? The big problem I see is that LILO or GRUB can't boot from a software RAID-5/10 so I will have to mount the /boot partition elsewhere. It's probably terribly simple...if you have done it before which I have not. I have read some articles on how to setup a RAID-5/10 with mdadm (e.g. [url] ) but they usually do not talk about how to setup the boot partition. Should it be setup as a small sized (100-200MB) RAID-1 partition spread over all of the drives in the otherwise RAID-10 array?
What about swap? Should I create a 4-8GB (I plan to upgrade the server RAM to 4GB in near future) RAID-1 swap partition on each of the disks or swap to a file on the main RAID-10 partitions. The second sounds simpler but what about performance? Is swapping to a file on RAID-10 array a bad idea, performance wise?
Is it possible to grow a RAID-10 array in a way similar to growing a RAID-5 array with mdadm (using two extra drives instead of one of course)? mdadm doesn't actually even mention RAID-10 despite it does support it without having to create RAID-0 on top of RAID-1 pairs if the support is in kernel, from what I know.
How often do RAID arrays break? Is it worth having RAID if a servers hard drive goes down? I was thinking it may just be a better option to just have a backup drive mounted to my system and in the even of a system failure just pop in a new hard drive, reload the OS, and then reload all my backups?
View 14 Replies View RelatedI have a new server and it is rather slow during raid 1 recovery after system installed
CPU: Intel Core2Duo E5200 Dual Core, 2.5Ghz, 2MB Cache, 800Mhz FSB
Memory: 4GB DDR RAM
Hard Disk 1: 500GB SATA-2 16MB Cache
Hard Disk 2: 500GB SATA-2 16MB Cache
root@server [~]# cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [raid1]
md0 : active raid1 sdb1[1] sda1[0]
256896 blocks [2/2] [UU]
md1 : active raid1 sdb2[1] sda2[0]
2096384 blocks [2/2] [UU]
md2 : active raid1 sdb4[2] sda4[0]
480608448 blocks [2/1] [U_]
[=======>.............] recovery = 36.7% (176477376/480608448) finish=1437.6min speed=3445K/sec
the sync speed is just 3.4Mb/second and the total hours needs to be more than 40 hours
Also the server load is very high (nobody uses it)
root@server [~]# top
top - 07:00:14 up 16:55, 1 user, load average: 1.88, 1.41, 1.34
Tasks: 120 total, 1 running, 119 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s): 0.0%us, 0.2%sy, 0.0%ni, 99.7%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.2%si, 0.0%st
Mem: 4148632k total, 747768k used, 3400864k free, 17508k buffers
Swap: 5421928k total, 0k used, 5421928k free, 569252k cached
I am in the process of restructuring the infrastructure on our servers. I am thinking of using either RAID 5 (1 hot spare) vs RAID 10 as my 1U server has 4 HDD tray.
RAID 5 would have better capacity but RAID 10 has better overall performance. Which one do you guys go for a shared hosting server?
Is it possible to turn a non raided setup into Linux software raid, while it is live, and if it's the OS drive? Can you even software raid the OS drive remotely? I've been thinking about doing it for the redundancy (and possible slight performance boost for reads, but doing it more for redundancy). I'm using CentOS.
View 12 Replies View RelatedI want to take some data from a raid-disk (taken from a raid-1 sstem). Put it into a new system already, but this system doesn't have any raid.
When viewing "fdisk -l", it said /dev/sdb doesn't contain valid partition. Is there anyway I can mount it now? I am on CentOS 4 box
MY server configure our drives with RAID-1.
How can I check it my server configure with 3ware or software raid ?
Also please advise me how can I monitor raid configuration that my raid is working fine or no ?
I've been talking to the Planet about trading in my four and a half year old "SuperCeleron" (from the old ServerMatrix days) Celeron 2.4 GHz system for something new. As part of their current promotions, I've configured a system that looks decent:
Xeon 3040, 1 gig of RAM, 2x250GB hard disks, RHEL 5, cPanel+Fantastico, and 10 ips for $162.
Not too bad. I could bump up the ram to 2 gb for, I think, $12 more, which I'm thinking about and wouldn't mind some thoughts on. But, the thing that has me really confused is RAID. I like the idea of doing a RAID 1 setup with those two hard disks. But, the Planet wants $40/month for a RAID controller to do it. I really don't want to go over $200 a month!
Any thoughts on alternative redundancy strategies that might avoid that cost? Software RAID does not seem to be offered by the Planet, unless I can figure out how to do it after installation (is that possible?) Better ideas in general on the server?
Just curious what your thoughts are on performance:
2 SCSI Drives 10k w/RAID 1
or
4 SATA 10k w/RAID 10
Prices are not too different with 4 drives just being a tad more.
how well software raid can perform and how it compares to hardware raid. How does software raid actually work and is it worth it?
How should I look at be setting up software raid if I was going to? Would you recommend just to use hardware raid instead?
Which do you guys recommend of the following?
4x 73GB 15,000rpm SAS drives in a RAID 10
or
4x 73GB 15,000rpm SAS drives in a RAID 5 w/ online backup