[Critique My...] Storage Server

Say I have 8 disks, and 2 4-disk RAID controllers. Do I have to construct 2 separate arrays?
Yes unless the cards are specifically designed to work together. Otherwise you're off to software-RAID (OS) land to capture all the drives.
 
So something like Newegg.com - 3ware 9550SX-4LP 64-bit/133MHz PCI-X SATA II Raid Controller Card - Retail $309?

I actually have a question, then. Say I have 8 disks, and 2 4-disk RAID controllers. Do I have to construct 2 separate arrays? Is there any way to combine them, or get the controllers to work together?

The cards have to be designed for it. If they are they can share across the bus, but you really don't want to do that since now you are slowing the whole array down. Since it has to leave the card and go across the array to talk to the other card. It would be better to get an 8 port card. The only time I have used multiple cards is to have have two identical arrays that mirror each other, that way if one raid card fails the second card comes online with no downtime. But I really doubt you need that level of mission critical hardware at your house serving porn and mp3's
 
Keep in mind that SATA controllers, like IDE, have a higher cpu load than SCSI. If this is for heavy use, I'd suggest a dual cpu system or scsi drives. Otherwise, I guess your setup is ok.
 
It's bullshit is what it is. He's right of course that SCSI uses significantly less, but if the box is doing nothing else except serving files even if you were using a 1Ghz P3 you'd never have to worry about the cpu slowing things down.
 
Yeah, because 100 people can each pull 100 1 mb files a minute off a p3 running ide drives. It depends on usage.
 
Keep in mind I've spent the last week trying to recover a crashed RAID5 array at work, so I'm a little bitter about the whole topic. Based off your motherboard specs, I'm guessing that's the RAID format you're looking to try.

RAID 5 is retarded. A RAID 5 array containing a cache partition is doubly retarded. Your time and data is more than worth the minimal cost of the physical drives. Write speeds suck, there is a large window or vulnerability while the array is reduced, and both these problems are compounded with a software implementation.

Also, RAID systems are not a magic bullet. They handle physical drive failures ok, but they are no substitute for backups. Get a hardware controller with real hardware calculations regardless of what RAID level you use. Personally, I'd go with either a RAID 10 system or a RAID 50, but please don't use the onboard controller no matter what you do.
 
Back
Top