Topic: New systems: please advise

[Jaime Nebrera]

Hi all:

  I'm designing a couple of server systems to use with a highly customized ESGS 4.1.2 (upgrading to Mitel SME won't be a valid answer ) I have some experience with low end servers, but this is the first time I plan for such a system and want to be sure before hand.

  The first one is a medium end system consisting of:

   * InWin Q-200O server case
   * Rioworks SDVIA-LR Motherboard (dual processor, Intel LAN, AMI IDE RAID)
   * 2x Pentium III 866 Mhz
   * 2x CPU coolers
   * 512 MB PC133 Trascend
   * 3Com Etherlink III PCI 10/100
   * 2x Seagate 40 GB IDE ATA 100 5400 rpm
   * APC UPS BK-650 MI
   * ATI VGA

  What do you think? Will the AMI IDE RAID work in ESGS 4.1.2? What about the UPS?

  The other one is a high end system consisting of:

   * InWin Q-3000 6x Hot Swap SCA server case
   * Rioworks SDVIA-LR Motherboard
   * 2x Pentium III 1000 Mhz
   * 2x CPU coolers
   * 1 GB PC133 Trascend
   * Adaptec RAID 2100S U160 SCSI (I will work with RAID 5)
   * 3x HD SCSI 18,2 GB U160 Barracuda SCA
   * 3Com Etherlink III PCI 10/100
   * APC UPS BK-650 MI
   * ATI VGA

  What do you think? What about the Adaptec Controller?

  I have seen in the phorums that there is no trouble with the Adaptec Controller (just install ESGS in advanced mode). But what about rebuilding a broken RAID system? Do I need X system to make it without rebooting the system? (then, there is no sense for the hot swap feature). Will it work with the hot swap? Will it be automatic or do I will need to rebuild it manually? (besides switching hard disk of course).

  This system is the one that is causin me more trouble. I don't want to need to reboot the system to access the BIOS configuration, neither install an X system in a ESGS box (thats one of the best features of ESGS).

  Anybody with real experience please advise. I don't want to advice somebody to buy something that later on wont work as desired with ESGS. I dont care if I need to make some programing or tweaking but knowing there is an end

  Thanks in advance.

  Regards.

[Alex Ziemann]

In your System one:

Why two CPU for a midrange-server? Im doing fine with 1 400 Mhz PII in a 10 User net (heavy load) and others do fine with 1 * 800PIII with up to 50 Users and more. Are you doing number crunching there )?

I would never choose an EIDE Disk with 5.400 RPM for Server. Better take 7.200 RPM Disk; they are normally pretty much faster. Even better take SCSI, if Disk I/O is asked for many users.

No experience with these "onboard eide raids"; normally they do not work under linux.

Perhaps you should follow the hardware-examples at www.myezserver.com or www.greencomputer.com.

And also perhaps for a real heavy-load database- or filesharing server (with no webserver/gateway options) one could use another linux distro?

hth Alex

[Jaime Nebrera]

Hi,

>Why two CPU for a midrange-server? Im doing fine with 1 400 Mhz PII
> in a 10 User net (heavy load) and others do fine with 1 * 800PIII with up
>to 50 Users and more. Are you doing number crunching there?

  Well, I find dificult to convince my client that you can get a server with just a Celeron 800. Our low end system will be a Celeron 800 with 256 MB RAM just double needed for a high use system in ESGS 4.1.2 (as seen in docs).

  But this board is very high quality and the price very adecuate. You get a server quality board, dual propcessor support and IDE RAID all in one product for the price of a high end ASUS or ABIT.

> I would never choose an EIDE Disk with 5.400 RPM for Server. Better take
> 7.200 RPM Disk; they are normally pretty much faster. Even better take SCSI,
> if Disk I/O is asked for many users.

  Well, that was the idea but our supplier told us they were getting three times more RMA returns with 7200 drives compared to 5400. They  are specialized in servers and didn't recomend it (?)

> No experience with these "onboard eide raids"; normally they do not work
> under linux.

  It's not an AMI Mega RAID? This one is supported in ESGS 4.1.2

> And also perhaps for a real heavy-load database- or filesharing server
>(with no webserver/gateway options) one could use another linux distro?

  Sorry, I just love ESGS concept and have invested quite a lot of time customizing it. It needs to be done with ESGS 4.1.2

  Thanks and hope some others follow.

  Regards.

[Kelvin]

Hi Jaime,

Just to add my 2 bits worth :-

>Well, that was the idea but our supplier told us they were getting three times
>more RMA returns with 7200 drives compared to 5400. They are specialized in
>servers and didn't recomend it (?)

I personally build a LOT of servers and desktops using IDE 7200rpm drives (yes, mostly Win2K servers, but servers no less). Don't know about being less reliable than 5400 rpm drives. Maybe your supplier got burnt on a bad batch.

Regards,

Kelvin

[Dan G.]

As I understand it, 7200 RPM drives are less forgiving when it comes to handling mistakes --- they just won't withstand much shock at all.  Many resellers buy bulk OEM packs of drive units, then break them down and sell them individually.  If they try to "cheap out" on the packaging when they send it to you, the likelihood of it getting damaged is very high.  The types of damage being seen in cases like this become evident fairly early in the life of the drive, BUT NOT IMMEDIATELY --- just right about the point you have left the customer site, thinking everything is good

If one particular reseller is claiming to have problems of that magnitude, I would be suspicious of their handling practices.  Take a look at the supply chain for their drives --- how many times have they been shipped in other-than-manufacturer-specified packaging?  If > 0 --- avoid

Dan

[Scott Smith]

The 7200 drives are also more prone to mechanical failure due to the increased physical demands of spinning almost 50% faster. There is more heat, which affects both physical parts (bearings, motors, etc.) and electronic components. There is more vibration, which can create various types of fatigue, and there is more physical contact in the bearing assemblies, which contributes to the heat problem as well as the fatigue problem. Airflow over the platters is much more critical and sensitive than in a lower RPM unit, meaning that the heads are more easily affected (ie, they will stop flying) by disturbances in the environment.

In other words, there are more ways for high RPM drives to fail and to do so more easily than lower RPM counterparts.

The last time I checked the failure rate on 7200 drives was higher, but I don't recall it being quite as high as 3 times the rate for 5400 drives. Dan is right -- you should check with other vendors to see if the failure rate is common, and you should investigate your vendor's sources and handling methods. Shock (G force) is not good for a drive, whether it is running or not, and poor packing and handling can do a drive in as quickly as anything.

You might also try to determine if the stated failure rate is for all 7200 drives, or just one particular brand and/or model. Some vendors get married to one particular brand or model line, figuring that if the first one or two or twenty they tried were great, then all subsequent ones will be great, too. They often miss the fact that their favorite has fallen flat and that better solutions are out there.

Scott

[Jaime Nebrera]

Geeeee,

  Well maybe I was a little exagerated, you know I'm a spaniard and we tned to be a little of that ) !!

  He just pointed out they were having a higher RMA from 7200 drives compared to 5400 drives. Of course this technology has come a long way and probably this values would be mere or less the same, even when most probably they will still be a little bit higher (as commented, they suffer more).

  OK, what about the Adaptec 2100S with a hot swap unit? Any experience out there with this combo?

  Thanks in advance.