Project: Galaxy 5.0

Areca is SFF-8087 (according to manual)
Adaptec is also SFF-8087.

Unplug the cable entirely from both ends, plug it into the sas controller and the sas disks. If the disk end doesn't fit, don't force it (duh) but if it does there will be no problems.
 
rogue_jedi said:
The areca doesn't have the same miniSAS connector the adaptec has? That's what it looks like from the pictures, at least...
Click to expand...

Yes, but the Areca uses Mini-SAS to SATA breakout cables. The SAS hotswap unit is an SFF interface which connects via SFF-MINI to the MiniSAS controller interface.


An alternative coudl be to run a SATA on the SAS controller, but that wont tell me much, I am confident that the controller is working just fine.
 
unhappy_mage said:
Areca is SFF-8087 (according to manual)
Adaptec is also SFF-8087.

Unplug the cable entirely from both ends, plug it into the sas controller and the sas disks. If the disk end doesn't fit, don't force it (duh) but if it does there will be no problems.
Click to expand...

SAS drives uses a diffrent conector than SATA drives. Areca comes with MiniSAS to SATA cables, not MiniSAS to SAS or MiniSAS to SFFSAS, etc.

I ordered the Adapted cable already, I'm just going to wait, as there is nothing that's really going to help me at this moment and no local stores carry equipment like this. This is one of those days I would kill to have a store like fry's in my State.
 
Ockie said:
Anyone with suggestions? I'm going to guess it's the cable. I need to confirm asap so I can perhaps look at a saturday delivery or something.
Click to expand...

Did you try to plug a drive directly into the Adaptec controller?? Ah, just read again, so the cable is different....

Also, I would try a sata drive on the controller, at least verify that it is working....
 
Ockie said:
Anyone with suggestions? I'm going to guess it's the cable. I need to confirm asap so I can perhaps look at a saturday delivery or something.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the controller is just fine. I think it's the cable too.

Here's a similar experience to add to the FUD: with my Adaptec 31605 card (same family as your 3405, except 16 ports instead of 4), all was well when I used the Adaptec-supplied SFF-8087 cables. However I also had bought some 3Ware "SFF-8087" cables from TheNerds.net or some other etailer, and tried testing the 3Ware cables with the adaptec. The drives were NOT seen by the controller when using any of the 3ware cables. As soon as I switched back to the Adaptec cables, they appeared again. F-ing bizarre! SFF-8087 is supposed to be a standard, right? I can't imagine that Adaptec uses some proprietary pinning on the miniSAS connector on the board, that gets translated correctly within their Adaptec-branded cable before the SATA end of the cable. If so, they should be shot. :|

Here's another strange experience: when plugging the miniSAS end of the Areca-supplied SFF-8087 cables into the Areca 1280ML, all six of them pressed FIRMLY into place, some of the drives were not seen, i.e. drives 5-8 were not seen, so given that it was a block of four drives, I assumed the miniSAS end of the cable was having an issue. After HOURS of pulling my hair out trying different things I finally realized that the miniSAS end of the cable was happiest not FIRMLY plugged in to the connector on the board, but rather plugged in firmly and then backed out just a hair. I never had an issue with the miniSAS connector pressed "too" firmly into the Adaptec 31605 however. Nuances like those make me nervous.

If I were you I'd just overnight an Adaptec SFF-8087 cable and take it from there before scratching head any more.

-O
 
odditory said:
I'm sure the controller is just fine. I think it's the cable too.

Here's a similar experience to add to the FUD: with my Adaptec 31605 card (same family as your 3405, except 16 ports instead of 4), all was well when I used the Adaptec-supplied SFF-8087 cables. However I also had bought some 3Ware "SFF-8087" cables from TheNerds.net or some other etailer, and tried testing the 3Ware cables with the adaptec. The drives were NOT seen by the controller when using any of the 3ware cables. As soon as I switched back to the Adaptec cables, they appeared again. F-ing bizarre! SFF-8087 is supposed to be a standard, right? I can't imagine that Adaptec uses some proprietary pinning on the miniSAS connector on the board, that gets translated correctly within their Adaptec-branded cable before the SATA end of the cable. If so, they should be shot. :|

Here's another strange experience: when plugging the miniSAS end of the Areca-supplied SFF-8087 cables into the Areca 1280ML, all six of them pressed FIRMLY into place, some of the drives were not seen, i.e. drives 5-8 were not seen, so given that it was a block of four drives, I assumed the miniSAS end of the cable was having an issue. After HOURS of pulling my hair out trying different things I finally realized that the miniSAS end of the cable was happiest not FIRMLY plugged in to the connector on the board, but rather plugged in firmly and then backed out just a hair. I never had an issue with the miniSAS connector pressed "too" firmly into the Adaptec 31605 however. Nuances like those make me nervous.

If I were you I'd just overnight an Adaptec SFF-8087 cable and take it from there before scratching head any more.

-O
Click to expand...


Bummer, Too late for me to upgrade to saturday delivery. Oh well. I will try your other theory by backing the cable out.

I think there might be a reason why adaptec gives you a book on thier cables that are availible and how to get them... cheap marketing... bunch of bastards. :mad: I was under the impression these cables are standardized. I'm going to take a leap and guess that adapted moved thier pins ever so slightly forward so that only their cables are a true fit.
 
Ockie said:
Bummer, Too late for me to upgrade to saturday delivery. Oh well. I will try your other theory by backing the cable out.

I think there might be a reason why adaptec gives you a book on thier cables that are availible and how to get them... cheap marketing... bunch of bastards. :mad: I was under the impression these cables are standardized. I'm going to take a leap and guess that adapted moved thier pins ever so slightly forward so that only their cables are a true fit.
Click to expand...

Well SFF-8087 *is* a standard. I'm not really sure what's afoot here - whether they've messed with the pin mapping on the miniSAS/board end, or within their cable, or whether they've messed with the LENGTH of the pins as you are pondering, or whether we're just being paranoid and our experiences are all unrelated to any evildoing on their part. I just know that cable connectors shouldn't have this many damn nuances.

Maybe these 16-pin miniSAS connectors are just touchy due to the density (amount) of pins in a small area.

I wouldn't worry too much - once its all up and running you'll likely never have issues again with the cables.
 
odditory said:
Well SFF-8087 *is* a standard. I'm not really sure what's afoot here - whether they've messed with the pin mapping on the miniSAS/board end, or within their cable, or whether they've messed with the LENGTH of the pins as you are pondering, or whether we're just being paranoid and our experiences are all unrelated to any evildoing on their part. I just know that cable connectors shouldn't have this many damn nuances.

Maybe these 16-pin miniSAS connectors are just touchy due to the density (amount) of pins in a small area.

I wouldn't worry too much - once its all up and running you'll likely never have issues again with the cables.
Click to expand...


Yeah, now it's just waiting.

In the meantime, I am picking up the other little things that I am still missing, they are also on their way.
 
hey Ockie, this may have already been asked but where are you putting this machine?
I remember one of the main things you were concerned about with your last build was decreasing noise and this one is definitely going to be loud
 
EnderW said:
hey Ockie, this may have already been asked but where are you putting this machine?
I remember one of the main things you were concerned about with your last build was decreasing noise and this one is definitely going to be loud
Click to expand...

It's getting its own room.
 
I don't know if you're still looking for suggestions about the cables, but I have a thought.

Are the cables you bought host-based or target-based?

Host based cables go from the adapter card to the drives.
Target based cables go from the drives to the backplane.

I wonder if the cables you ended up with are target-based instead of host-based. I had the exact same problem with my cables (hooked everything up, but the controller didn't see any drives).

I fixed it by opening up the "backplane" side of the cable and switching the TX and RX cables corresponding to each SAS drive. I doubt you want to do that much tedious soldering.

On this site, scroll to the type of cable I think you are after:
http://www.cs-electronics.com/iSAS-cables-NEW.htm
Almost at the bottom of the page, under

INTERNAL Mini SAS 36-CKT TO (4) 7-PIN SATA CABLES,

look at the iSAS-737P - that's what I think you want. I think you ended up with the equivalent of the iSAS-7P73
 
DCT said:
I don't know if you're still looking for suggestions about the cables, but I have a thought.

Are the cables you bought host-based or target-based?

Host based cables go from the adapter card to the drives.
Target based cables go from the drives to the backplane.

I wonder if the cables you ended up with are target-based instead of host-based. I had the exact same problem with my cables (hooked everything up, but the controller didn't see any drives).

I fixed it by opening up the "backplane" side of the cable and switching the TX and RX cables corresponding to each SAS drive. I doubt you want to do that much tedious soldering.

On this site, scroll to the type of cable I think you are after:
http://www.cs-electronics.com/iSAS-cables-NEW.htm
Almost at the bottom of the page, under

INTERNAL Mini SAS 36-CKT TO (4) 7-PIN SATA CABLES,

look at the iSAS-737P - that's what I think you want. I think you ended up with the equivalent of the iSAS-7P73
Click to expand...



This does make sense. I never checked with the cable I bought, it had no real description... this could have explained the cheap price. Oh well. I knew I should have just spent the extra few bucks.


Anyways, thanks for your input, I do have the right cables on the way from adaptec this time :D
 
DCT said:
<snip>

Are the cables you bought host-based or target-based?

Host based cables go from the adapter card to the drives.
Target based cables go from the drives to the backplane.

I wonder if the cables you ended up with are target-based instead of host-based. I had the exact same problem with my cables (hooked everything up, but the controller didn't see any drives).

<snip>
Click to expand...

I don't think a target/host cable mixup is the issue here. Reason being I tried the Adaptec SFF-8087 cables both straight into the drives, as well as plugged into the backplane, and they worked in both scenarios. Conversely, I tried the cheapo 3Ware SFF-8087 cables I bought and plugged them both straight into the drives, and straight into the backplane, and it didn't work in either scenario. If it was a simple matter of TX/RX pins being reversed or the backplane requiring a certain type, then in my test that issue should've revealed itself. Again, point is that the backplane in this particular Supermicro case is happy with the same cable that works when just plugged straight into the drive, so it would seem there's no pin remapping going on within the backplane before it reaches the drive tray - its transparent.
 
I can't believe it - I just ordered a second 24-bay Supermicro case, to populate with all my extra 500GB sata drives I have laying around. Sigh. It's storage-gone-wild in my garage now - definitely out of control, including the decibel level. Not sure yet if I'll throw a motherboard in or just use it as a glorified external storage subsystem. I guess it'd be wasteful not to run it with a motherboard.

I also just expanded my primary system to the 24th 1Tb drive - opted for Raid6 after much deliberation, so after Raid6 overhead (2 x 1Tb drives) my array leaves me with a net of 22Tb. Formatted out, ofcourse that's even less - 20Tb. I remember holding my first 1Tb drive in my hand and thinking it was a big deal - now with 24 of them, they're just a statistic.

As Ockie can probably attest to, when you buy a monster system in bits and pieces, the overall cost doesn't slap you in the face with the kind of sticker shock that a single order comprising all the parts would. Evil. Each time I start to add up the cost of all the parts, I get halfway through and then quickly try to think of something else.

array0ho9.jpg
 
odditory said:
Can you believe it - I just ordered a second 24-bay supermicro case, to populate with all my extra 500GB sata drives I have laying around. Sigh. It's storage-gone-wild in my garage now - definitely out of control.
Click to expand...

We need pics of the setup.
 
Guess what? The adaptec replacement cable works like a charm! Dang, that was interesting.


Anyways, I'm ready to go live, raid array created :cool:

I wish I had your purchasing account odditory, I would go nuts... hell probably get divorced too. I second the notion of a second system.
 
Ockie said:
Guess what? The adaptec replacement cable works like a charm! Dang, that was interesting.


Anyways, I'm ready to go live, raid array created :cool:

I wish I had your purchasing account odditory, I would go nuts... hell probably get divorced too. I second the notion of a second system.
Click to expand...

Wow I'm *so* surprised the adaptec cable worked *roll eyes* j/k :) Seriously though, as to WHY the adaptec works and the cheapo one doesn't even though they both supposedly follow SFF-8087, is anyone's guess.

My purchasing account is still money out of my pocket - no corporate sponsors here putting Skoal, Heineken or Home Depot stickers across this case like it was Nascar.

I'm pretty sure I'm not going to go balls-out with another dual Xeon board again - system #2 will be focused on keeping costs LOW, with a bare minimum configuration - basically a glorified NAS. Likely just a $100 motherboard like a D975XBX2 or something. Must...resist... dual-CPU skulltrail board... http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/04/intels-skulltrail-qx9775-x-2-never-met-a-benchmark-it-didnt-li/

Ockie: I *still* have my 780i motherboard and 3 x 8800gtx's sitting in boxes waiting for assembly since over a month now - that's how much this server build has sidetracked me. All thanks to you.
 
odditory said:
My purchasing account is still money out of my pocket - no corporate sponsors here putting Skoal, Heineken or Home Depot stickers across this case like it was Nascar!
Click to expand...

and we all feel very sorry for the massive amounts of money that you are able to spend on this ;)
 
odditory said:
My purchasing account is still money out of my pocket - no corporate sponsors here putting Skoal, Heineken or Home Depot stickers across this case like it was Nascar.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but discounted prices ;)

odditory said:
I'm pretty sure I'm not going to go balls-out with another dual Xeon board again - system #2 will be focused on keeping costs LOW, with a bare minimum configuration - basically a glorified NAS. Likely just a $100 motherboard like a D975XBX2 or something. Must...resist... dual-CPU skulltrail board... http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/04/intels-skulltrail-qx9775-x-2-never-met-a-benchmark-it-didnt-li/
Click to expand...

Same here. Ill still go with a supermicro board, but super low end, single or dual core, etc.

odditory said:
Ockie: I *still* have my 780i motherboard and 3 x 8800gtx's sitting in boxes waiting for assembly since over a month now - that's how much this server build has sidetracked me. All thanks to you.
Click to expand...

Heh, sounds like we have the same configuration going :D

jojo1224 said:
Shopped look at the pixels around the letters. jk thats sweet and how do u fill 9.49TB?
Now we just need a pic or two of the rack or setup all running.
Click to expand...

I thought odditory would have more than that ;) That aint nuttin :p
 
Windows 2008 is now RTM so this is the route I am most likley going.

I can't wait to post some performance benchies tonight.
 
Ockie said:
Windows 2008 is now RTM so this is the route I am most likley going.

I can't wait to post some performance benchies tonight.
Click to expand...

I dunno, running the first release of a Windows server OS on a server seems like a terrible idea to me. The HP guys we talked to a couple weeks ago at work thought so too :p
 
rogue_jedi said:
I dunno, running the first release of a Windows server OS on a server seems like a terrible idea to me. The HP guys we talked to a couple weeks ago at work thought so too :p
Click to expand...

You make it sound like the he wants to install an alpha version. Microsoft.com's been running on Server 2008 over a year for whatever that's worth, and notwithstanding, its been a LONG beta cycle. He's not exactly supporting hundreds or thousands of users at his home with mission critical apps. No doubt something like converting all the domain controllers in a production environment overnight and "hoping for the best" would be a different story, and ofcourse not advised.

Even the third party hardware he's got (ie Areca 1280ML) has working x64 drivers, so I say go for it. Unless you're worried the O/S will go crazy and start zero-filling his harddrives for no reason (conspiracy theorist), I don't see the big deal. Running it myself with no probs, including 2 x Hyper-V (virtual) machines on it. I know Ockie is interested in virtualization on it so Hyper-V built-in is a major selling point. The ability to span multiple physical volumes into a single share without having to use DFS is also a great reason by itself to take the leap.
 
I tried Windows Server 2008 Standard rc1 and it used almost 512mb of ram right after i installed and i had nothing running or open besides task manager.
 
jojo1224 said:
I tried Windows Server 2008 Standard rc1 and it used almost 512 ram right after i installed and i had nothing running or open besides task manager.
Click to expand...

Ockie has over 20gb, i dont think this will be a problem.
 
2008 may have issues more than 2003 would, but this is a new build, the last thing I really want to do is go latest and greatest everything and dump out on the software. Also, worst case senario, I can always jump back to 2003 :)
 
Ockie said:
2008 may have issues more than 2003 would, but this is a new build, the last thing I really want to do is go latest and greatest everything and dump out on the software. Also, worst case senario, I can always jump back to 2003 :)
Click to expand...

Are you gonna use the beta version or wait to buy Server 08 when released?
 
AMD_RULES said:
Are you gonna use the beta version or wait to buy Server 08 when released?
Click to expand...

As Ockie said, Windows Server 2008 standard/enterprise/datacenter went gold (RTM) on monday, same day as Vista SP1. That means it was released to developers, manufacturers and partners. If you have an MSDN account its available there, and probably "countless other places" too.

Server 2008 Enterprise working great here. I'm benchmarking VMware ESX virtual machines against Hypervisor (Hyper-V) virtual machines, and wouldn't you know it, it seems like the Hyper-V machines running Windows XP for example are a tad faster than VMware ESX running WIndows XP - at least in SiSoft Sandra so far. This is good news since it means the overhead of Windows Server is extremely low (almost nonexistent when idle) when running virtual machines on it. While VMware's product offerings are good, their pricing is ridiculous and I'm glad Microsoft's Hyper-V is now a formidable competitor.

Here's a tip for anyone in the I.T. industry: I learned today that Microsoft will not support Microsoft operating systems running inside any virtual machine other than Hypervisor (including VMware). In other words if you want tech support on a Windows 2003 Server running in a virtual machine, if its not running in Hyper-V, Microsoft will not help you. I guess you can lie, and in that case YMMV, but if they have to remote desktop to your server and notice its inside a VMware virtual machine, you're out of luck. This is actually a pretty big deal and good to know for any network engineers out there. As for the politics or ethics of their stance, or whether people agree with it or not, thats another (useless) discussion.
 
odditory said:
Here's a tip for anyone in the I.T. industry: I learned today that Microsoft will not support Microsoft operating systems running inside any virtual machine other than Hypervisor (including VMware). In other words if you want tech support on a Windows 2003 Server running in a virtual machine, if its not running in Hyper-V, Microsoft will not help you. I guess you can lie, and in that case YMMV, but if they have to remote desktop to your server and notice its inside a VMware virtual machine, you're out of luck. This is actually a pretty big deal and good to know for any network engineers out there. As for the politics or ethics of their stance, or whether people agree with it or not, thats another (useless) discussion.
Click to expand...

Bull. They may not support vmware or whatever the hell citrix bought but they are still supporting virtual server.

I do agree with you on hyper-v. ESX is way too expensive.
 
I have a damaged disk or something, so no go on the 2008 for me until I can redo the whole MSDN thing. So I'm going 2003 until I can get 2008 sorted out.


I installed 2003 last night, but I'm having interesting problems (besides having to spend a couple hours trying to find a single damn floppy disk).

1) System doesn't show all the memory, only shows half
2) I don't see all the hard drives, only a few
3) System doesn't like to be rebooted via software (I'm assuming it's the IPMI since it screams when I do that, when I shut down and start up everything is happy, just no reboots)
4) Since I put in the Areca 1280ml in JBOD mode, it says PCI bus test failure, so I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean and if it's related to the lack of drives being displayed.



I'm getting a little frustrated and a little worried at the same time. I've never had such problems before with such a type of system, so I'm hoping it's a couple settings or something that I overlooked. This whole process probably would be much easier for me if I had my main system and all my other systems online, right now the main system is getting also an upgrade and I have to dig through boxes to find anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top