File Server Upgrade Options
-
@scottalanmiller said in File Server Upgrade Options:
RAID 6 or maybe 60 will make the most sense, Im sure, to keep costs from exploding.
assuming this gives the performance you need, this was my thinking.
-
@coliver expect to run out of storage in march. @scottalanmiller the raid 6 or 60 does seem like the most cost conscious option.
-
@larsen161 said in File Server Upgrade Options:
@coliver expect to run out of storage in march. @scottalanmiller the raid 6 or 60 does seem like the most cost conscious option.
Yep, then RAID 6 or 60 is the way to go.
-
@larsen161 said in File Server Upgrade Options:
Filesystem Size Used Avail Capacity iused ifree %iused Mounted on /dev/disk2s2 38Ti 30Ti 8.1Ti 79% 3450784 4291516495 0% /Volumes/Grandsister_Benny /dev/disk1s2 38Ti 26Ti 12Ti 69% 1177292 4293789987 0% /Volumes/Grandmaster_BennyOk now it makes a bit more sense, the columns being misaligned had me confused for a second.
-
I'd probably look at RAID60 at these scales.
-
@larsen161 said in File Server Upgrade Options:
@coliver expect to run out of storage in march. @scottalanmiller the raid 6 or 60 does seem like the most cost conscious option.
And I agree inn superMicro chassis. Pretty much unbeatable.
-
@scottalanmiller wow, supermicro has some impressive chassis. but ohh boy, their website design though....
perhaps something like the 24-bay, 4u SC846BE1C-R1K28B
do they offer pre-sales support or its via a reseller typically?
-
@larsen161 said in File Server Upgrade Options:
@scottalanmiller wow, supermicro has some impressive chassis. but ohh boy, their website design though....
perhaps something like the 24-bay, 4u SC846BE1C-R1K28B
do they offer pre-sales support or its via a reseller typically?
Generally via reseller. I don't like their sales system, but I love their products. I wish that xByte would carry them.
-
@larsen161 said in File Server Upgrade Options:
Goals
Run a 'proper' storage server OS
Migrate to more reliable RAID configuration
Upgrade storage capacity (expect to run out in March 2018)
Backup data
Support 6k video editing across a team of 12
Adding 10Gbps to server
Adding 10Gbps switch
Adding 10Gbps to clientsYou can use any existing server you have, but get a decent RAID card, such as a H830 2GB nvcache.
Go to xbyte.com, and price out something like a Dell MD1400. You could build something nice with a bunch of NL SAS drives. This whole thing will run at 12gbps bandwidth. Hook your server up to 10gbps fiber switch.It'll look like this:
client -> fiber switch -> server -> 12gbps SAS to MD1400 (and back)
You could probably do the whole thing for under 7k depending on how big the hard drives are and how many. If you threw in 12x 4TB NL SAS drives, it'll be under 7k most likely. You could RAID10 that.
-
Thoughts on a 45 Drives setup?
-
@larsen161 said in File Server Upgrade Options:
Thoughts on a 45 Drives setup?
Not that great generally. For how Backblaze uses them they're good, but really not nearly so reliable as a normal server.
-
@larsen161 said in File Server Upgrade Options:
Thoughts on a 45 Drives setup?
Cheesy. Not for production use. Better than the B.B. Pods, but still not applicable to any SMB.
-
-
@scottalanmiller said in File Server Upgrade Options:
http://www.smbitjournal.com/2016/10/smbs-must-stop-looking-to-backblaze-for-guidance/
How is that not in my list of reference links yet? Is now.
-
@travisdh1 said in File Server Upgrade Options:
@scottalanmiller said in File Server Upgrade Options:
http://www.smbitjournal.com/2016/10/smbs-must-stop-looking-to-backblaze-for-guidance/
How is that not in my list of reference links yet? Is now.
One of those "it was repeated so many times on SW that it needed at article" articles.
-
@scottalanmiller said in File Server Upgrade Options:
@travisdh1 said in File Server Upgrade Options:
@scottalanmiller said in File Server Upgrade Options:
http://www.smbitjournal.com/2016/10/smbs-must-stop-looking-to-backblaze-for-guidance/
How is that not in my list of reference links yet? Is now.
One of those "it was repeated so many times on SW that it needed at article" articles.
You have seen my collection of those, right?
Yes, I keep them all around for quick and easy referencing.
-
@scottalanmiller If you were building storage at the scale of something like a Backblaze pod, how would you do it?
Seems like I asked this one time before, but I forget.
-
@dafyre said in File Server Upgrade Options:
@scottalanmiller If you were building storage at the scale of something like a Backblaze pod, how would you do it?
Seems like I asked this one time before, but I forget.
You wouldn't, it's that simple. The BB Pod is just one tiny piece of a giant cluster. It only works as it is because it's a disposal cog in a bigger machine. If you wanted just "a pod", you just... don't. It's a dumb idea. You should never have a single point of failure that freaking large. It is too much to back up and restore all at once.
You'd build a cluster of smaller storage devices, not a single monolithic one.
-
@scottalanmiller said in File Server Upgrade Options:
@dafyre said in File Server Upgrade Options:
@scottalanmiller If you were building storage at the scale of something like a Backblaze pod, how would you do it?
Seems like I asked this one time before, but I forget.
You wouldn't, it's that simple. The BB Pod is just one tiny piece of a giant cluster. It only works as it is because it's a disposal cog in a bigger machine. If you wanted just "a pod", you just... don't. It's a dumb idea. You should never have a single point of failure that freaking large. It is too much to back up and restore all at once.
You'd build a cluster of smaller storage devices, not a single monolithic one.
So essentially, you are saying that unless you're doing something like Backblaze, there's no real reason to build something like this?
-
@dafyre said in File Server Upgrade Options:
@scottalanmiller said in File Server Upgrade Options:
@dafyre said in File Server Upgrade Options:
@scottalanmiller If you were building storage at the scale of something like a Backblaze pod, how would you do it?
Seems like I asked this one time before, but I forget.
You wouldn't, it's that simple. The BB Pod is just one tiny piece of a giant cluster. It only works as it is because it's a disposal cog in a bigger machine. If you wanted just "a pod", you just... don't. It's a dumb idea. You should never have a single point of failure that freaking large. It is too much to back up and restore all at once.
You'd build a cluster of smaller storage devices, not a single monolithic one.
So essentially, you are saying that unless you're doing something like Backblaze, there's no real reason to build something like this?
That's what I've been saying for years. The BB Pod is an extremely specific purpose designed component of a larger system that has no reason to exist outside of that larger purpose. It is of zero value to anyone not using it for the purpose for which it is designed.
It's like looking at a 100TB RAID array of RAID 10 x 20 10TB drives and asking how to use a single 10TB drive without RAID in a server. Of course, the answer is you never do that. The 10TB SATA drives only make sense to use in production when part of the RAID 10 array. Remove the array, you remove their applicability. Same here. You can't just pull one cog out of a machine and wonder where to use it, it doesn't work that way.
