Tag Info

New answers tagged

0

The short of it Although pretty much every other answer around here is right, that getting proper hardware is pretty much the only way to go, as you'll otherwise end up in a situation you do not want to be in, concerning data loss. There is a reason companies make server grade environments and there is a reason they cost what they do. The long of it I ...


-1

I think that your idea could work quite ok. See, for example, https://communities.vmware.com/message/2368577#2368577 It's a pity that ESXi does not support mdadm. So, your idea sounds like round-about, but I assume, that if you will configure everything properly, there will be only a very minor performance overhead. See the following article about the ...


2

The block size should be 64kb for MSSql Server, for optimal performance, as described by an easy Google search. In regards to drives, RAID 10 requires an absolute minimum of 4 drives (look at the image you linked yourself) and then you can expand to your hearts content in pairs of 2 (again look at the image you linked). But remember that once the system is ...


0

Bit late to the party here, but for what it's worth "attached" SSDs in Azure have their IOPs throttled based on the machine size. It wasn't mentioned in the pricing anywhere but I raised this issue as a ticket with technical support when they referred me to the blog post below. See this link: ...


1

The accepted answer works for vSphere 6 as well, and it works for both local and remote SSD drives either with JBOD or RAID configuration. The additional commands not mentioned in the answer are: # esxcli storage core claimrule load # esxcli storage core claimrule run # esxcli storage core claiming reclaim -d <naa.ID> Then you can test if you were ...


0

I have to disagree with both existing answers sorry, Linux doesn't come with any cluster-aware filesystems enabled as standard, some don't come with one at all in fact, and if you have two systems that think that they have exclusive access to a disk device then you will get corruption on that disk unless you use a cluster-aware filesystem. That said this ...


-1

You'll be fine as long as you don't run into SCSI reservation conflicts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fencing_%28computing%29#Approaches_to_fencing Devices can issue SCSI reservations on targets that prevent other devices from doing IO to that target. (Or, as @caskey posted, it's controller that can properly handle IO from different devices to the same ...


-1

The strict answer is that as long as the two partitions (A and B) are only accessed from their own server then you will be fine. Just be sure you do your partitioning from only one host and then only mount the partitions from consistent hosts and you will be fine. Note, some Really Cheap San disk controllers don't accept multiple simultaneous different ...


0

I know this is a bit of an old post - I'm having a similar problem with Solaris 11.2. Dual port HBA, and one of these new fancy 16Gb jobbies, and even worse - it appears they've given me a CNA, not a pure FC HBA. Wonderful.... Like you, QLC works fine, QLT says no. I've done dozens of 11.2's on regular non-branded QLogic 8Gb cards, never had any issues ...


2

The cache on the card is getting in the way. The raid card cache is designed to enhance the performance of spinning drives. The best option on most ssd array is direct io and write through. You can test the different performance using hdtune or various other tools. You can leave the drive cache enabled.


-1

some iSCSI implementations will allow you to export virtual drives onto SAS or SCSI (with appropriate hardware). and given that the 2003 box has an external SCSI connector this may not be difficult. the hardware will netboot without too much trouble (it supports pxe), but unless you are already netbooting 2003/XP boxes setting up the infrastructure to do so ...


15

I totally don't want to discount the rest of your question, but the path of least resistance is to replace the failed disks. When dealing with legacy equipment, there may be a temptation to devise an esoteric or clever workaround, but your immediate goal is to keep this particular hardware running in the current and stable state until you can migrate ...


1

I can't find an official confirmation for this sorry but I did find one for the MSA2324sa working with an MSA70 - which was the SFF version of the MSA60 - so I'd certainly place a small wager that it'll work and probably be supported. That said like ewwhite I also hate the idea of using non-HP disks in HP storage, you don't need to look far on this site to ...


3

I would suggest using an D2600 unit instead of the MSA60, but it will technically work when cascaded from your MSA2324 unit. 6TB drives... 4TB disks are known to work in that enclosure, so the 6TB will likely work. I wouldn't use SATA for a JBOD expansion because (depending on your cabling choice) you'll lose the dual-port/dual-pathing that the SAN ...


1

I'd check the following in order Verify HBA adapters on second servers are connected to Brocade switch(s). Verify WWPN's from 2nd server are logged into Brocade switch ports. Verify HBA WWPN's on second server are zoned correctly in Brocade switch(s). Verify WWPN's from 2nd server are visible from DS8000. Verify LUN's on DS8000 are assigned to the correct ...


7

You're not one for the scientific method, are you? Different operating systems. Different platform (server versus workstation). Different CPU architecture. Unsupported SSD on the RAID controller. Raw SATA versus a disk connected to a RAID controller backplane. The assumption that a RAID controller is supposed to be "faster". Misconfigured settings on the ...


1

I can't neccessarily speak to vBox, but the following applies to VMware. When you delete a file from a VM with an active snapshot, the delta disk doesn't increase by the size of a deleted file. I can confirm this because, after the comments to Michael's answer, I went and tested it on my vSphere 5.5 system. The Test Picked a VM with an quiet secondary ...


1

You've got it exactly backward: If you revert to your snapshot, then whatever is in it is replayed (in reverse) and merged to the volume from which the snapshot was taken. This makes the volume identical to the snapshot, and the snapshot is destroyed. If you delete the snapshot, nothing at all is merged; the snapshot is simply destroyed and your volume, ...


0

The order of the disks won't matter, the configuration for the RAID is stored on the controller, which is in your older system and moving the disks to another controller will just present 8 new disks for it use. It won't know about any existing data. Was the file system encrypted or just a standard RAID 5? Use RAID 6 next time :)


0

General option 1 It's possible to share a physical drive, or in general, any block device between two KVM being run on the same host. Just pass device filename to -drive option. General option 2 If you need to share the drive between two VMs on two different hosts (in general), you need SAN (storage access network) in general. It could be FibreChannel ...


1

Two options the way I see it: Use NFS as per other commenters - NFS seems to be the path of least resistance juggle disk assignment and use some orchestration tool with KVM you can do things like "hot-plug" disk etc. via: $ virsh attach-disk ... then inside VM that got this disk attached mount disk and do your backup umount disk inside VM on ...


1

Another consideration is power usage (which is often billed). While 2.5" use less power per drive than 3.5" drives, because they are not available at higher capacities they use more power per GB.


12

Use 2.5" disks for enterprise SAS workloads and 3.5" for bulk and high-capacity storage. You've answered your own question. Buy the right type of server for your anticipated workload. If you need high performance drives, optimize for that. If you need a lot of storage, then focus on that. Small-form-factor (2.5") disks are available in the following ...


8

It is a cost/performance vs capacity question. 2.5" HDD, at the same RPM/rotational delay, have a performance advantage versus their taller brother by the virtue of the smaller platter area. This in turn permit lower seek time (because the head had to travel a physically shorter distance). At the same time, this means that total platter area (read: ...


1

In general, running your own open-source cloud storage solution will be far less secure than any industry-standard service. Think of it this way, those companies have entire teams of people dedicated to nothing but securing their product, and they still make mistakes... That said, if you just want to do your best while swallowing the risk, here is some ...


1

this article in PCWorld may be of interest.


1

Rebooting will clear all rebuild progress and yes it will start over at 0. I had the same issue with the same card and other 3ware cards. Had to weigh the value of the current reboot versus waiting for rebuild again. I will admit, sometimes it was worth more to start over and other times it was worth more to wait for rebuild to finish. Depends on your use ...


1

While the first answer suggesting a blind timeout will likely work, might I suggest looking into S3 notification events. If you plan to scale out to more than two servers, using something like SNS or SQS to manage what happen once an object has been successfully written, for example, is going to make things much easier than relying on blanket timeouts. ...


1

If this is a desktop system, this will likely get marked as off-topic and redirected to SuperUser - FYI. More hardware specifications would be needed to answer with any degree of certainty (what motherboard, which PCI slot the card is in, etc). However, that LSI card may well be the performance bottleneck. I would suggest you set up a single-drive RAID0 ...



Top 50 recent answers are included