Solved Email server options
-
@Dashrender said in Email server options:
@scottalanmiller said in Email server options:
Samsung EVO 970 1TB for $250. If you want 4TB of usable and bought 8 of these for RAID 10 it would be $2,000.
So if you are getting enterprise drives from the server vendor themselves, I could see $3,200.
Would you trust running your business on those EVO drives? I mean I would assume they would work, But enterprise class drives do have some value, but perhaps just not enough value?
Sure
-
@scottalanmiller said in Email server options:
@Dashrender said in Email server options:
@scottalanmiller said in Email server options:
Samsung EVO 970 1TB for $250. If you want 4TB of usable and bought 8 of these for RAID 10 it would be $2,000.
So if you are getting enterprise drives from the server vendor themselves, I could see $3,200.
Would you trust running your business on those EVO drives? I mean I would assume they would work, But enterprise class drives do have some value, but perhaps just not enough value?
Sure
Split all that shit to a new thread please.
-
@Curtis said in Email server options:
Mailcow offers domain admins as well, so everyone could still have complete control of their domain.
Create accounts, alias, etc.
ok, not liking mailcow because of this. I'm sorry, but I need something with something more than one person behind it.
-
@JaredBusch more than one person it seems.
-
@JaredBusch it’s been around since 2015 - https://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/58855/mailcow-a-complete-mail-server-suite
-
@Curtis said in Email server options:
@JaredBusch it’s been around since 2015 - https://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/58855/mailcow-a-complete-mail-server-suite
Lots of things have been around a long time. That does not mean I will use them.
Jury is still out on Mailcow.
-
@Pete-S said in Email server options:
Always go with 3.5" storage when you need some volume but not SSD speed.
Ultrastar 12TB 7.2K SAS-3 drives are about $400 each. 12TB RAID-1 becomes about $800 for 12TB storage. That's 6.7 cents per GB of data.How long will it take for a raid array to rebuild on a 12Tb disk?
-
@dyasny said in Email server options:
@Pete-S said in Email server options:
Always go with 3.5" storage when you need some volume but not SSD speed.
Ultrastar 12TB 7.2K SAS-3 drives are about $400 each. 12TB RAID-1 becomes about $800 for 12TB storage. That's 6.7 cents per GB of data.How long will it take for a raid array to rebuild on a 12Tb disk?
The time it takes to copy one full disk to the new drive.
-
@dyasny said in Email server options:
@Pete-S said in Email server options:
Always go with 3.5" storage when you need some volume but not SSD speed.
Ultrastar 12TB 7.2K SAS-3 drives are about $400 each. 12TB RAID-1 becomes about $800 for 12TB storage. That's 6.7 cents per GB of data.How long will it take for a raid array to rebuild on a 12Tb disk?
If RAID 1, it's a strait copy. If other RAID levels, the answer is really complex.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Email server options:
@dyasny said in Email server options:
@Pete-S said in Email server options:
Always go with 3.5" storage when you need some volume but not SSD speed.
Ultrastar 12TB 7.2K SAS-3 drives are about $400 each. 12TB RAID-1 becomes about $800 for 12TB storage. That's 6.7 cents per GB of data.How long will it take for a raid array to rebuild on a 12Tb disk?
If RAID 1, it's a strait copy. If other RAID levels, the answer is really complex.
Exactly, in other words, you didn't provide enough information to answer your question.
It will also depend if the system is in use while the rebuild is happening - and how much that activity is hitting the disk.
-
@travisdh1 @scottalanmiller my point here is, huge drives sounds great on paper, in terms of $ per Gb, but whenever possible, I will always take a lot of smaller spindles over a few huge ones. When dealing with spindles that is, SSDs and NVMes are a whole different story of course.
Imagine you're building a large data store with huge disks, because it feels like you're getting more for less that way. And assuming your disk in a RAID5 takes X hours to rebuild. During that X, you're as vulnerable as if you were running raid0, more vulnerable, because you have multiple disks from the same production series, with the same age and wear on them, so chances are high more will die simultaneously. The larger the disks, the higher the X, and 12Tb will have you counting X in days, not hours, at least in a parity based RAID.
You can always go for other RAID levels, with higher redundancy rates, but that also has downsides, both in price and performance. In short, YMMV, but I always advise to take factors beside the price per Gb into consideration, it's a huge factor people tend to skip entirely.
-
@dyasny Are we on the why RAID 5 is bad with massive capacity storage disks again?
-
The simple answer is, a risk assessment should be performed, but generally speaking spindles are a never use RAID5 case. RAID6 or 10.
SSD RAID5 is okay.
-
@dyasny said in Email server options:
es are high more will die simultaneously. The larger the disks, the higher the X, and 12Tb will have you counting X in days, not
yup - the math shows that at 12 TB, you have a near 100% chance of a second drive failing during a RAID 5 resilver.
RAID 6 or 10, and depending on the size, might even have to go to RAID 7 instead of 10.
This makes looking at SSDs and RAID 5 very attractive.
-
@Dashrender said in Email server options:
@dyasny said in Email server options:
es are high more will die simultaneously. The larger the disks, the higher the X, and 12Tb will have you counting X in days, not
yup - the math shows that at 12 TB, you have a near 100% chance of a second drive failing during a RAID 5 resilver.
Not at all. Not even close. You are mixing URE risks with disk failure rates. Unrelated items.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Email server options:
@Dashrender said in Email server options:
@dyasny said in Email server options:
es are high more will die simultaneously. The larger the disks, the higher the X, and 12Tb will have you counting X in days, not
yup - the math shows that at 12 TB, you have a near 100% chance of a second drive failing during a RAID 5 resilver.
Not at all. Not even close. You are mixing URE risks with disk failure rates. Unrelated items.
Whoops.. you're right, I typed the wrong thing...
-
@dyasny said in Email server options:
Imagine you're building a large data store with huge disks, because it feels like you're getting more for less that way. And assuming your disk in a RAID5 takes X hours to rebuild. During that X, you're as vulnerable as if you were running raid0, more vulnerable, because you have multiple disks from the same production series, with the same age and wear on them, so chances are high more will die simultaneously. The larger the disks, the higher the X, and 12Tb will have you counting X in days, not hours, at least in a parity based RAID.
Absolutely, although you have to consider the total number of spindles as well. Each additional spindle carries a risk factor, too.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Email server options:
Absolutely, although you have to consider the total number of spindles as well. Each additional spindle carries a risk factor, too.
same idea as with distributing a load between a lot of small hosts or running one big monolith.
-
@dyasny said in Email server options:
@scottalanmiller said in Email server options:
Absolutely, although you have to consider the total number of spindles as well. Each additional spindle carries a risk factor, too.
same idea as with distributing a load between a lot of small hosts or running one big monolith.
Sort of, but that's not quite the same. It's distributed in both cases, it is redundant in both cases. There are lots and lots of factors involved, not just "breaking it up into nodes." It's more complex than that. At some point, more smaller spindles is safer, but at some point fewer, larger ones are. And you have to consider a lot of factors including drive fail rates, UREs, time to rebuild, time to replace, etc. It's a large equation.
For example, if your drives move 100 IOPS, then many small drives is likely to make sense. But if your drives move 10,000,000 IOPS, then two giant drives will likely make more sense (assuming equal failure risks.) Speed and failure rates are key here, if you don't consider then, you can't tell when more drives or fewer drives is safer.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Email server options:
Sort of, but that's not quite the same. It's distributed in both cases, it is redundant in both cases. There are lots and lots of factors involved, not just "breaking it up into nodes." It's more complex than that. At some point, more smaller spindles is safer, but at some point fewer, larger ones are.
At what point fewer larger spindles are safer? With more drives you get more spindles, reducing the seek time, the main problem with magnetic drives. With more drives you can implement RAID with better redundancy levels - 10, 50, the EE variants etc. The only real downside is the fact that you are running more kit - you need more physical space, connectors, cables, power and more parts might fail and need replacements (without affecting the system).
And you have to consider a lot of factors including drive fail rates, UREs, time to rebuild, time to replace, etc. It's a large equation.
Most of these factors, when dealing with spindles and not SSDs/NVMes favour the more/smaller idea.
For example, if your drives move 100 IOPS, then many small drives is likely to make sense. But if your drives move 10,000,000 IOPS, then two giant drives will likely make more sense (assuming equal failure risks.) Speed and failure rates are key here, if you don't consider then, you can't tell when more drives or fewer drives is safer.
10000000 IOPS? Are we still talking about spindles here?
