Buy RAID Card or Build New Server

[boatasiaus]

I want to upgrade my home server capacity for movies, music, digital pics, etc. I am running Windows 2003, with about 4 pcs connected. The current server is an "older" Dell P4, 1.8Ghz, with 1gig RAM. Note: Only PCI is available

I have a few 1TB hard drives sitting home right now, and want to add them to the server in a RAID 5 configuration. As I see it I have 2 options:

Option 1:

Use my current server. Buy a hardware based RAID card for the PCI slot. Cost will be in the $400 range.

Option 2:

Build a new Home server PC (AMD AM2 Dual core, 2gigs ram, Mobo: TBD, Mirrored Boot drives). Utilize the onboard chipset for RAID. Cost: About the same at around $400

Which way would you go? Suggestions?

PS I have a thread going in Motherboards to help ID that angle

 

[axan]

is the server just file storage? if so your current hardware is just fine, the pci raid card will have bit lower throughput then pci-e version but if all you doing is sharing files between 5 computer it will be just fine.

 

[kr1mson]

my suggestion for either case is to do hardware raid with a card.
in the event of a failure of your motherboard, depending on what chipset is used, how old it is, etc. you may have a difficult time finding an identical chipset on a replacement motherboard (especially if its a discontinued product), and you will risk the possibility of not being able to boot your RAID and losing all of your data.
plus, a lot of times motherboard onboard RAID solutions are not fully 100% hardware raid. plus, some arent all that great at RAID solutions that require a lot of cpu resources (like raid5)

typically hardware raid solutions (pci/pcie/pcix) cards use a very compatible, very widespread chipset/hardware/whatever so that if your card dies, you can replace it with a large variety of hardware and it will boot just fine. also, they tend to support RAID 5 much better.

that being said, between your two choices, i would say go with your PCI card solution. also, in the event of a future upgrate, the chances of finding a pcie raid card with the same/compatible chipset as to what is on your PCI raid card is high, so you can just swap out cards (or continue to use the PCI card in your new box)

but, thats just my opinion.

if you end up with some extra 1TB drives laying around, feel free to send some my way haha.

 

[axan]

good point about the motherboard raid chipset, if the mobo dies and it's outdated you might have tough time finding one thats able to read your raid config.

 

[boatasiaus]

Thanks for the replies.

The server system is just servicing a handful of machines, primarily streaming music & movies. I am somewhat concerned about the PCI Bus being able to seamlessly handle this.

I have thought about the whole mobo failure/RAID card failure potential. To my simplistic view, the failure rate for MOBO's is higher than RAID cards (at least you hear more about MOBO's dieing on the forums). In addition, I wasn't aware that RAID cards, generally speaking, followed a "standard", thqat allowed "transferability".

Any comments on the Areca 1110 seen here: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816131001

 

[axan]

raid card "transferability" is usually just within same brand, you can't go from lsi to 3ware or areca but 99.9% of the time you can go from model x to y to z from the same brand.

As to the raid card you linked, it's a pretty good choice.

 

[Madwand]

I suggest forgetting about RAID 5, using external backups, and adding gigabit if you haven't already.

 

[boatasiaus]

I suggest forgetting about RAID 5, using external backups, and adding gigabit if you haven't already.

Have already upgraded to Gig E.

Why do you suggest forgetting RAID 5? Are you suggesting using tape?

 

[shade_star]

my suggestion for either case is to do hardware raid with a card.
in the event of a failure of your motherboard, depending on what chipset is used, how old it is, etc. you may have a difficult time finding an identical chipset on a replacement motherboard (especially if its a discontinued product), and you will risk the possibility of not being able to boot your RAID and losing all of your data.
plus, a lot of times motherboard onboard RAID solutions are not fully 100% hardware raid. plus, some arent all that great at RAID solutions that require a lot of cpu resources (like raid5)

typically hardware raid solutions (pci/pcie/pcix) cards use a very compatible, very widespread chipset/hardware/whatever so that if your card dies, you can replace it with a large variety of hardware and it will boot just fine. also, they tend to support RAID 5 much better.

that being said, between your two choices, i would say go with your PCI card solution. also, in the event of a future upgrate, the chances of finding a pcie raid card with the same/compatible chipset as to what is on your PCI raid card is high, so you can just swap out cards (or continue to use the PCI card in your new box)

but, thats just my opinion.

if you end up with some extra 1TB drives laying around, feel free to send some my way haha.

Completely disagree. If you are doing a good backup practice then this is a moot point.

 

[MrGuvernment]

So forget the above, buy a shit chipset / raid card and just make sure it is backed up vs buying a more reliable product. ?

yes backups are important, but not everyone has the cash to be able to afford room to backup terrabytes of data and would rather risk / rely on a well made product doing what it was meant to do!

backup to more harddrives? well i disagree, those are as reliable as the raid card...... it is an endless loop, soon people will need backups, or backusp of their backup's backups.

 

[axan]

So forget the above, buy a shit chipset / raid card and just make sure it is backed up vs buying a more reliable product. ?

yes backups are important, but not everyone has the cash to be able to afford room to backup terrabytes of data and would rather risk / rely on a well made product doing what it was meant to do!

backup to more harddrives? well i disagree, those are as reliable as the raid card...... it is an endless loop, soon people will need backups, or backusp of their backup's backups.

Thats the situation i was in, i have 5TB file server at home, full of media and junk like that, I can't afford tape backups and I would rather add another 5tb of storage to the server then use it to backup the data. That's why i rely on raid 5, sure it's not substitute for backup but it gives me level of protection and it doesn't brake the bank.

 

[cburwell]

Are you open to other operating systems?

I just upgraded my file server using 5 X 500GB drives in a hot swap enclosure. It uses openSUSE with a PCI 1x SATA II controller (SIL 3132 Based) and a single 1-in 5-out SIL 3132 based port multiplier. All of this runs on an Athlon 300+ with openSUSE.

openSUSE works well with the SIL based cards. Even if you are not familiar with the Linux command line, openSUSE has a disk partitioner that will allow you to control all of this with a few clicks.

The SATA II controller card was about $20 shipped at microbarn. The PMP was about $85, and the SATA backplane was about $112 (you can don't need this). So, for about $220 (not including the drives), I expanded my storage from 500GB to 1.8TB (actual).

I am experienced with MDADM (Linux software RAID), but as I said openSUSE makes creating and manging arrays incredibly issue.

Edit: Obviously you would need a new motherboard and processor, but you can find a decent S939 board and processor for a good price now since they are end of life.

 

[Madwand]

Have already upgraded to Gig E.

Cool. PCI presumably, which would then share bandwith with the PCI RAID controller and limit performance, though not necessarily severely below typical Windows file transfer rates over gigabit.

Why do you suggest forgetting RAID 5? Are you suggesting using tape?

I have nothing against RAID 5, but in this particular context, there are a few things going against that IMO -- PCI, expense, small number of ports, expensive drives and high parity overhead.

"RAID alone is not a backup". Accumulating TB's of data without a real backup carries a risk of having that data being rendered useless. From this perspective, it's better to accumulate less if that's what it takes to have backups.

So when faced with alternatives of sinking this money into such a RAID controller vs. setting up an external backup, I suggest considering the backup.

A lot could be accomplished with the similar drives in external enclosures which are normally disconnected and powered down. Alternatively, you could have two servers -- one as the primary and the other as a backup.

Of course not everything may be critical from a backup perspective. If you have workstation backups on the server, then those parts could be left without additional redundancy. Similarly for DVD rips which could be redone. Things like personal photos, movies, and other original and personal data should have an external disconnected backup IMO.

 

[boatasiaus]

Thanks for all the replies.

yes backups are important, but not everyone has the cash to be able to afford room to backup terrabytes of data and would rather risk / rely on a well made product doing what it was meant to do!

I agree. Backups are important, but in this case, the data will also exist either on the client PC's (ie pictures & music) or on DVD's (originals of ripped movies). The goal of the RAID set would be ease of access with some degree of data protection

Thats the situation i was in, i have 5TB file server at home, full of media and junk like that, I can't afford tape backups and I would rather add another 5tb of storage to the server then use it to backup the data. That's why i rely on raid 5, sure it's not substitute for backup but it gives me level of protection and it doesn't brake the bank.

Exactly!

Are you open to other operating systems?

For several reasons, I want to stick with 2003. This is a test/learning setup for me, a spare for my office, + several other reasons. I have also considered unRaid as well, but...

Cool. PCI presumably, which would then share bandwith with the PCI RAID controller and limit performance, though not necessarily severely below typical Windows file transfer rates over gigabit

Excellant technical point I had not considered.

Alternatively, you could have two servers -- one as the primary and the other as a backup.

Thats the arrangement I have set up at work, and potentially the direction I head in the future: A server + NAS backup running Backup Exec CPS, but right now the funds available limit my possibilities...

The big question right now is the PCI bus. Does it have enough bandwidth to support both a GigE LAN card, and say an Areca 1110 with (3) 1TB drives in RAID 5?