Re: [ARSCLIST] IDE RAID storage?

[Jeff Kane <jeffkane@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm a newbie on the list (first post) but have 'done' IT for quite a while.
IDE arrays work quite well and are in most cases easier to set up and manage
than their SCSI counterparts. RAID 5 should be more than sufficient for your
speed needs and will provide the redundancy you require. I don't recommend
Serial ATA, however as it can only address one device per channel. This will
be limiting if you're trying to build a very large RAID array. It
effectively halves the number of drives you can have on the array for a
given number of ports. SATA is also slightly more expensive. SATA RAID cards
do exist with 8 ports (and possibly more) so the single-drive-per-port
limitation may not be a functional hindrance if you want to go SATA.

IDE RAIDs are stable and perform reasonably. I would think one would perform
as well as a SCSI array for what you want. We use the 3ware Escalade 7500
card (around $250) for a RAID 5 array here and it's been a very good
performer. It isn't terribly fast on writes but is extremely fast on RAID
array rebuilds and on array reads vs. the Adaptec 2400 IDE RAID card. 3ware
now makes an 8 port SATA card but I'm not sure how it performs vs. the
Escalade. It is a 64 bit 66MHZ PCI card so it should have a distinct
performance advantage.

We don't use our array for audio (it's used for a database) so I can't tell
you how it'll perform for your application. How many users are you intending
to support?


-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of andy kolovos
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 11:10 AM
To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] IDE RAID storage?

At 08:23 AM 09/14/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>At 10:22 AM 9/14/2004 -0400, andy kolovos wrote:
>>Folks,
>>
>>Anyone out there have experience with IDE RAID?  I'm entertaining the
>>thought of creating an IDE RAID set up using an IDE RAID PCI card and
>>a PC packed with a bunch of disks as a mid-cost-level audio file
>>storage server (as opposed to dropping the big bucks--which we as a
>>small, independent non-profit, don't have--on say a Dell Power Vault
>>or some other NAS).  I'd like to do RAID 5, if that sort of thing can be
done with an IDE RAID card.
>>  However, I am most interested in hearing any experiences--positive
>>and negative--with using IDE RAID for file (in particular audio file)
>>storage, and the merits of different RAID levels for audio storage.
>>
>>Right now we've got stuff saved on a variety of internal and external
>>hard drives and data CDs, so I'm thinking IDE RAID might not be a bad
>>starting point for improvement.
>
>Again, I'm hardly expert here, but there are some obvious questions
>that may need to be examined if not resolved before you go that route.
>
>It's not clear what you're after with RAID. It's not even obvious what
>sort of functionality you're seeking - i.e. what level of RAID you plan to
use.
>If you're only after more drives without more drive letters, then
>remember that reliability goes down on RAID 0 as the storage goes up.
>If any drive in the array goes out, in first approximation all data are
>lost. For that reason, backup will be even more important than
>otherwise. Of course, RAID 0 does improve access time as well, but I
>don't see that as a great reason in archiving. If your purpose is to
>avoid partitioning a database, be aware that the advantage of a single,
>large DB in simplicity trades off against a slower search; again, usage may
dictate design.
>
>If you're going for high reliability, then the backup problem is traded
>for  extra cost - whether or not you also buy the added capacity/speed.
>
>I went for SATA RAID 0 - speed was the issue for the RAID
>configuration, but I chose SATA at slight increase in cost per drive to
>leave the motherboard's IDE ports open for optical drives. (I prefer
>SCSI, but try to find a SCSI DVD writer.) The SATA speed advantage
>appears slight in practice, but again archiving should not need speed
there.
>
>Whatever RAID level you want for whatever purpose, there should be no
>reason IDE would be an obstacle in the system you're configuring.
>
>
>Mike
>--
>mrichter@xxxxxxx
>http://www.mrichter.com/

Mike and others--

What I'm looking for is a high level of data redundancy and a method of data
storage where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.  RAID level 1,
10/1+0 and 5 seem to promise this, and IDE-based RAID seems to do so at a
much lower cost per gig  than SCSI RAID and the file storage servers being
offered by companies such as Dell.  I haven't looked into SATA RAID.

I'm tending toward RAID 5 because of its seeming robustness when compared to
the other options.  I also gather with RAID 5 storage capacity is at around
2/3 the total size of all the discs in the array as opposed to 1/2 the total
size with RAID level 1, 10/1+0.

But, in short, what I'm most concerned with is safer data storage.

Having already lost a HDD (thankfully after the data were transferred!),
single disc storage, even when dupicated on additonal HDDs, makes me
nervous.

Thanks,

andy
*********************************
Andy Kolovos
Archivist/Folklorist
Vermont Folklife Center
P.O. Box 442
Middlebury, VT 05753
(802) 388-4964
akolovos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.vermontfolklifecenter.org