Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

So my HP Proliant Microserver rocked up today.

Immediately turfed the onboard micro SAS and plugged in my HP P400 controller out of an HP SB40c Storage Blade for hardware RAID 5 sexy times.

Tomorrow I've gotta go to MSY and pick up 4x 2TB WD 5400RPM drives and 8GB RAM to finish my setup.

Haven't decided on the OS to run though. Still thinking ESXi with 1 Ubuntu server VM. Altho OpenIndiana and FreeNAS all seem nice too.

So my HP Proliant Microserver rocked up today.

Immediately turfed the onboard micro SAS and plugged in my HP P400 controller out of an HP SB40c Storage Blade for hardware RAID 5 sexy times.

Tomorrow I've gotta go to MSY and pick up 4x 2TB WD 5400RPM drives and 8GB RAM to finish my setup.

Haven't decided on the OS to run though. Still thinking ESXi with 1 Ubuntu server VM. Altho OpenIndiana and FreeNAS all seem nice too.

Do the WD greens still constantly drop out of RAID?

oh and 5400 drives are for poofs.

Edited by DivHunter

Do the WD greens still constantly drop out of RAID?

Not sure, I did read about people complaining about them dropping out of RAID, but they were usually running some ghetto soft-RAID, not a hardware one. As with most manufacturers they don't gurantee the safety of the data on their consumer HDDs on anything other than RAID 0 or 1.

oh and 5400 drives are for poofs.

It'd be lucky to even break a sweat with a 4 HDD striped RAID. No need for 7200RPM when there's that much buffer and cache available. This is a budget setup after all and all up it's costing about $600 for a bulletproof setup. I'm not buying into the "green" marketing BS. It's just a better price and lower power consumption cos it's lower RPM. I only have peak 200W at my disposal, 50W of which is used by the board.

Not sure, I did read about people complaining about them dropping out of RAID, but they were usually running some ghetto soft-RAID, not a hardware one. As with most manufacturers they don't gurantee the safety of the data on their consumer HDDs on anything other than RAID 0 or 1.

Pretty sure I have seen them being dropped from hardware RAID solutions Dell PERC/Highpoint/Adaptec etc

It's a TLER issue, the green drives do not recover fast enough and are dropped from the array unless you can configure the timeout to something like 30 seconds. The newer drives should be able to have TLER enabled with a tool from WD.

have read the same thing divveh, though most of my workmates are running RAID5 in their home servers with the Intel chipset softraid and 1, 2, 3tb Caviar Greens fine, just gotta wait for some 2950's to reach EOL so we can scavenge the pci-e PERC cards out of them :D

Personally, I would avoid spindle drives made by anyone other than WD (ESPECIALLY Hitachi LOL), but that's just me.

Run ESXi on yo stuff, it's what all the cool kids are using for teh VM's! (if you are planning on running Media Centre etc from one you may find it fairly fail though!).

Ended up buying 4x2TB Seagate ST2000DL003's. Got them hooked up to an HP P400 in RAID 5... not the most secure RAID ever, but meh. Got the 512mb cache version with battery backup, so I can change drive RAID type and array number on the fly.

Got ESXi running off an 8GB USB stick inside the server, with an Ubuntu VM doing the fileserving and torrenting. I'm also trying out Solaris and FreeNAS in VM's too, but so far Ubuntu's probably the one that both easy and feature rich to use. Solaris is feature rich, but it's a PITA and regresses me to Uni days. FreeNAS is great for fileserving, that's about it. Really wanna try ZFS though, but running ZFS on top of a RAID is retarded.

Also ordered a HP N350T dual gigabit pci-e ethernet card so that I can dedicate the onboard port to interwebs, and two others to serving/streaming data over LAN if I ever need to.

Oh FFS! I just realised the drives I got don't support TLER. FUCK.

Guess I'll just have to run the SMART util on a cron to stop em spinning down. Gonna be fun booting it up though.

Alternative is to use the onboard sata controller with the drives in a ZFS config and use the SAS card to drive a JBOD setup later down the track.

edit: actually it seems like most of the guys complaining about the drives dropping out of RAID are because they drop out under heavy load or during startup. Both of those events trigger a high power draw, and looking at the drive specs, average power draw is 5.8W but when I hooked up my multimeter, on heavy load (random data written to HDD on all platters) and during bootup it was drawing around 22W. 4 x 22W = 88W power draw, which most of their NAS' would struggle to supply. The microserver should be OK since it has a 200W supply. Ah well, guess I'll find out shortly.

Awwww yeah. Went back to MSY and swapped the 4 ST2000DL003's for Hitachi 5K3000's. Which are fully supported by the RAID card. Fuck yeah Leo strut.

It took a bit of convincing (including one of the guys at MSY asking me why I didn't just test the RAID 1 array using one HDD :blink:) but got there in the end.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...