Re: Tyan, RAID-6, and other recent hassles... (long, a bit OT)

[berk walker <berk@panix.com>]

[I usually do not spend bandwidth in quoting big stuff, but your's might 
be worth it]
Properly chastised.  One CAN do net raid, 4,000 [where's my pound key?] 
is still a lot to me, [don't forget my name IS berk :)]

One doesn't always get what one pays for - but one usually pays for what 
one gets.


Too bad that you're not stateside.  I really like your attitude 
[email-wise], and would hunt you down for a job [mine sux].

b-

Gordon Henderson wrote:

>On Sat, 19 Feb 2005, berk walker wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Do you want a glass or some cheese?
>>    
>>
>
>Not really... I just thought I'd pass on my experiences and thank those
>who gave me support recently. By posting my configurations and thoughts
>and issues I've encountered during the way, I'm essentially opening myself
>up for a peer review if you like. I'm not saying my way is the best way,
>but it's one way. If others can learn from it, great. If they want to
>criticise it, thats also good, but it's only good if it's constructive.
>
>But a glass of Old Peculiar would go down nicely, thanks :)
>
>  
>
>>Actually, I am thinking that your main problem is a generic [almost]
>>BIOS issue, as no one in "right mind" would expect your configuration.
>>    
>>
>
>Expect my configuration ... what? To work? Why not? It's a motherboard
>with 4 PCI-X slots and a single 32-bit PCI slot. Why shouldn't it work?
>
>Or do you mean expect my configuration to exist at all as you think it's
>utterly preposterous?
>
>Right now it's working well, and it's about to be installed at the clients
>site where it'll run and be thrashed for a week at least before we put
>live data on it. Even then, we'll keep the old server (which it's
>replacing) going for a month or so until we're finally happy with it.
>
>I'm sure there is a BIOS or motherboard/chipset problem though and Tyan
>have some sorting out to do.  I have emailled them with all my issues and
>concerns, but not had anything back yet.
>
>  
>
>>Might I suggest a somewhat more expensive, yet safer work-around?
>>    
>>
>
>Feel free...
>
>  
>
>>Split your drives between more boxes and gigabite link them.  If you
>>work this well, you will have increased the survival of disk/other
>>failures - stick 'em in the mail room, or where-ever.
>>    
>>
>
>The server that this box is replacing has 12 disks. (Which I built some
>years back) This has 8. It has 12x the disk capacity and cost less than
>1/3 the old server did. It has redundant PSUs bought from a company that
>has been supplying server cases for over 10 years. It'll be installed in
>an air-conditioned machine room with dual 16KVA UPSs... Why should this
>server with multiple disks pose a problem?
>
>I've built many servers with multiple disks, and they all work well,
>after-all, thats what this mailing list is about - Linux with multiple
>disks!
>
>I've had to work round buggy motherboards in the past (Dual Athlon boards)
>and in that respect, this is not much different. I did at one point have 2
>(server) motherboards which had the "exploding capacitor" problems, but
>fortunately we were able to secure replacements before they actually
>exploded.
>
>One requirement for this server is for a very large filestore. TB or
>greater. I won't get that if I split the disks between servers. (Can you
>build an md device from network block devices?) I'm using RAID-6 as I've
>been bitten in the past with a 2-disk failure. (and been able to recover
>from it by using mdadm and advice given to others via this mailing list)
>
>This server will have a backup server, identical in configuration
>(although that's arguably not the best solution). The critical data will
>be backed to tape (as it is currently on the server it's replacing) and we
>have a good program of tape cycling with off-site backups being held. The
>file-store part just has to be reliable - it's all re-generable (program
>binaries, libraries, etc) so it doesn't have to be backed up to tape.
>
>The client already has nearly a dozen other fileservers which I've built
>for them over the years. This isn't the one server to serve them all, it's
>just one small piece in their network of servers.  They are a small
>silicon design co. but they have a huge data storage requirement.
>(Ironically their data storage requirements increases almost in proportion
>to Moores Law :)
>
>And tomorrow I'll be installing their first Gigabit Ethernet switch. This
>server box has Gb Ethernet. (although I have graphs from all their existing
>switches to prove that they don't actually need Gb Ethernet, but it's the
>way of the future, isn't it?)
>
>  
>
>>You have spent some big bux to set this up, spend a few more and harden
>>it. Eh?
>>    
>>
>
>I haven't spent "big bux" at all. I've (or rather my client) has spent
>less than £4K for 2 identical servers. I've spent a lot of time on it,
>sure, but my time comes at a constant cost for this client, so isn't a
>factor in this. I'd rather spend a lot of time on it now, than rushing it
>into place and then have to spend more time on it in the future. They are
>getting the server 2-3 weeks later than originally planned, but they can
>live with that. (And I'm 100 miles from their site, so not having to rush
>up the motorway if it does fail is a plus-point for me)
>
>My client is a small company. 40 people, limited funds, (and no mail
>room!), but great ideas. They've gone through good times and bad times
>over the years I've been working with them.  Right now is a good time, but
>money is still tight. I agree that you get what you pay for, but sometimes
>you just have to make do. When times have been good, they've bought Dell
>servers which I've installed Debian and s/w RAID on, and it's all "jsut
>worked", but when times aren't so good, you have no choice but to source
>from scratch and build according to budget. These servers will serve the
>purpose they want - affordable storage and compute for the application
>they have been built for (a combined MySQL/CVS home-grown application, as
>well as a disk store).
>
>I've been working for these guys for over 6 years now, and in that time
>all the servers I've built for them have been gracefully retired rather
>than gone terminally tits-up. I'm quite proud of that. It's not been easy,
>but with time and perseverance, and good help from the "community"
>everythings worked out just fine. The first server I built for them is now
>sitting next to me at home still running. It had 4 x 18Gb drives which we
>very soon upgraded to 8 18Gb drives, both drive sets running s/w RAID 5.
>It had 100GB of storage on it 5 years ago, and its performance (for the
>day) was stellar. Nowadays that's just peanuts, but thats progress for
>you!
>
>  
>
>>Just an old guy rambling-
>>    
>>
>
>Gordon,
>  just another old guy making a living.
>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
>the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
>.
>
>  
>

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html