Within 2 servers below, what is faster than:
Server 1:
Primary hard driver: 73GB SCSI 10k (for system, database...)
Secondary hard driver: 160GB SATA (for /home/ directory)
Server 2: 2 x 160GB SATA RAID 1
i know the subject may been talked a lot of time,
but i think those thread are too old,
and by the time pass and technology growth,
it may take difference,too.
in my feeling,i like seaget,
but some people tell me WD may be better,
if possible,could you tell me your choose or experience?
for possible,it can include the series type,
for example,WD 500G WD5000AACS...etc.
Would having a 15k rpm SCSI HD (vs 7200rpm SATA) provide significant improvement for a web server only running php scripts (the scripts are small in size, they just make DB calls to another server and return the results)? What if eAccelerator was installed?
View 3 Replies View Related1) what is the command to find out what processor is installed on the server
2) how do i find out what type on hdd i have sata or scsi?
whats the ssh command to find these two things out?
I have got a server with the following specs:
Dual Xeon 2.4 Ghz
6 Gb DDR ECC REG
1 HD 147 Gb 15K
On the board, there is an SCSI adapter which is an Adaptec 7899.
This configuration is working perfectly under Windows 2003. However, as per customer request, I have to install CentOS, RedHat or Fedora. Even Debian is OK.
However, during the install, the OS find NO hard drives and the installation is aborted.
I googled some time and it looks that there is 1 million people looking for a solution on how to install Linux on a machine with an AIC-7899.
The installer loads a driver AIC-7XXX but didn't find the device anyway.
Maybe what the advantages/disadvantages are of each in regards to a web hosting configuration?
View 6 Replies View Relatedabout SSD vs SCSI vs SATA HDDs?
I heard that SSD are slow in writing, but fast in reading.
is this true?
80GB Intel X25-M SSD is the model i am looking at.
Is this HDD recommended on servers? will this perform better then SCSI or SATA RAID10?
how this works, tell me more about writing
eading speeds (on SSD) etc.
what is the benefit of scsi upon a sata hdisk
View 10 Replies View RelatedI wonder which drive give the best performance? Look like they all have the same 15000 rpm. :d
Any experience?
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 .
I am looking for something like this:
[url]
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'm going to use it for a massive SQL database driven site.
Was wondering if SA-SCSI 10K RPM is far away better than Raptor SATA 10K if combined with quad core processor and 8GB RAM?
is it really worth the money nowadays to put in SCSI or SAS instead of SATAII (single disk, non-raid here), IF reliability is the only concern (i.e. NOT i/o performance) during the usual 3 year life time of a server?
Actually, I was pretty amazed by the sata reliability, in the past 3 years the only hdd failure was two sata on a mismatched mobo, which didn't support SATAII (a lot of read/write error, eventually died). Although we have 0% scsi and sas failure.
For building a house for, ie, 30 VPS, what kind of disks are you using? normal SATA? Raptor? SCSI?
I am going to use Quad-core CPU with 4-8GB RAM, but still wondering about the disks
Is it worth to pay $75 for 147GB SA-SCSI 15K RPM rethar than free 250GB SATA II?
I mean is it very big differance in speed?
Can clients feel that?
If the box is Single Processor Quad Core Xeon 5310 - 1.60GHz (Clovertown) - 1 x 8MB cache from softlayer
So I've just got a server with 2xSATA raid 1 (OS, cpanel and everything in here) and 4xSCSI raid 10 (clean).
Which one do you guys think will give the best performance:
1. Move mysql only to 4xSCSI raid 10
2. Move mysql and home folder to 4xSCSI raid 10
Planning to buy a server from softlayer, adding a single 300gb 15k scsi drive costs 100$/month and adding 4 250gb sata drives with raid-10 costs 90$/month
Which one would you pick up and why?
running new servers on 500GB+ hard drives, how are these drives performing when they become 50% full?
Can they properly be 50% or more utilized on a cPanel like server with 200+ acccounts?
trying to get my Win2k3 Standard R2 server to work.
Problem:
I did some Windows update around 3am this morning but during the update process. I lost Remote desktop connection as my machine is do several attempts to connect with the remote server. I cancel the attempt after several try. I figure i can remote desktop back in again if i wait for a bit but I couldn't re-establish the connection with my remote server. So, I drove to the Datacenter to check it out and it turn out the machine have rebooted and I'm stuck with "NTDetect failed" error message. After some googling, I was trying to fix this error by copying NTLDR and NTDetect.COM into C: but when i tried to use the Win2k3 CD to go into Windows Setup and repair. I got an error message telling me that "Setup did not find any hard disk drives installed in your computer...".
After some googling, I found the two Maxtor SATA hard disks might be the problem and one soultion that i found was to disable the SATA or set it to IDE since the motherboard have nvida RAID controller onboard. I check the BIOS and the RAID is set to disabled and then i tried to disable SATA and only enable IDE. It still give me the same error message about not able to find any hard disk.
I'm on my last rope here. I'm short of reformatting the hard disk and do a fresh reinstall but I will like to avoid this.
Does anyone know if cancel Remote desktop connection attempt during Windows update process cause this NTdetect failed problem or something else that might related to my hardware. I can assure you that two SATA hard disks shown on BIOS.
The soultion to NTDecte failed problem seem to be just copying NTLDR and NTdectect.com into C: but since i can't even get to Repair mode during Windows setup with no disk install error. Can someone recommand how to solve this problem?
The motherboard that i use is ASUS M2N-MX SE AM2 NVIDIA GeForce6100 / nForce430 and the BIOS is American Megatrends Inc.
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.
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?
I'm about to purchase a 2nd server to use as a database server. I've been quoted for 2 x SATA II 320GB hdd's in RAID 1 (the same of which I currently use on my single server), but searching around it appears SCSI is the norm for db servers. The problem is, my host does not offer these as a standard/upgrade option and they would need to be specially ordered (along with RAID card), which is expensive.
The fastest disks they offer are 150GB SATA 10K Raptors. My question is, would these be sufficient (compared to SCSI) and do they perform noticeably better than the standard SATA II disks?
Quoted database server specs:
Server = 1 x Dual Core Intel Woodcrest 5130
Memory = 4G RAM
Hard Drive 1 = 320G SATA II Hard Drive
Hard Drive 2 = 320G SATA II Hard Drive
Raid Config = RAID 1 (3 Ware Hardware RAID)
Bandwidth = 3000G Multi-Homed Bandwidth
IP Address = 4 IPs
OS = Centos 4.6 32 bit
Service Monitoring = Ping Monitoring with Email Notification
Server Management = Self-Managed
Control Panel = None
$239 Monthly
We have a powerful server for our databases, 8 cores, 4gb ram etc because we have a huge amount of MySQL data. We store the data on a standard SATAII 500GB drive, would we notice a dramatic performance improvement if we stored the data on a SA-SCSI 10/15k drive?
View 2 Replies View RelatedHi, I've been lurking around WebHostingTalk for a little while now and have finally decided to register and post. I see there are tons of knowledgeable game server professionals in this forum and thought this would be a great place to get some helpful hints while having fun at the same time. I currently have a server colocated in Los Angeles. I was able to get a server built for cheap with the following specs:
IBM eServer 326 (1U)
AMD Opteron 275 (room for 2)
2 GB DDR400 ECC-R
15K SCSI Hard Drives
Windows 2003 Server
Bandwidth: 3Mbps Burstable Mzima.
I'm trying to run a couple of Counter-Strike 1.6 servers for a couple of friends and clanmates of mine. There are currently only 3, maybe up to 5 if possible, servers being run right now with 1 of them being a 24 player public server (which isn't really filled 24/7), the rest are private match servers. I've been trying to accelerate them each to 250FPS+, 250FPS for the public and 500FPS+ for the private match servers but am having running problems.
The problem I am having is that only 1 of the servers will be able steadily maintain 500FPS. The other servers would fluctuate between 300 - 1000FPS. I've tried the "Windows Media Player/Flash" trick, and also the WinHL-Booster metamod plugin none of which have been able to suite our needs. We all want steady 500FPS w/ low pings for our private match servers for CALeague, because we all get jealous of each other.
I’ve been searching around for a while and don’t know what else to do. Any help that you all can provide will be greatly appreciated.
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.
View 9 Replies View RelatedI have a delicated server with "Intel RAID Controller: Intel(R) 82801ER SATA RAID Controller",I cannot find information on this raid.The 80 GB harddisk is about 4 years old,if one harddisk fail,I wonder if I can swap a new one bigger capacity and it will auto rebuilt?
View 2 Replies View RelatedWhich is the best platform when going with the tun/tap tunneling. Is it better to use Xen or Virutozzo for using the Tun/ tap feature.
My customer is trying to setup something like this on his vps.
I was wondering what would be the best solution either xen, virutuozzo or hypervm.
He is trying to setup something like this on his vps:
" i am asking for a vps with two nics enabled...a set of 8 ips assigned to the second nic to send, receive and pass traffic as a vpn server."
when install realtek AC'97 Audio Codecs (Software)
i get like blue screen all the ntime:/ can anyone recommend me a different sound driver
I am having quite a challenge getting openvz to work on centos 5 with a adaptec RAID card.
The driver likes the plain jane kernel..but then...
Configuration [OpenVZ (2.6.18-8.1.14.el5.028stab045.1)]
***NOTICE: /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.18-8.1.14.el5.028stab045.1 is not a kernel. Skipping.
There is also another issue not being able to disable Selinux.
I have tried the normal routes and even attempted disabling it in rc.sysinit..still...this "security framework" is able to load it..and cause problems.
Openvz and SeLinux don't get along..even a little bit.
So..those are the two probably seperate issues...that prevent the poor server from booting.
know of a Virtual Audio Driver that i can put on my dedicated Server that does not have a sound card.
View 1 Replies View Related