Help: Optimal RAID setup in HP box?

  • Thread starter Thread starter HP User
  • Start date Start date
H

HP User

Hi, I'm looking for advice on the optimal i/o setup
for HP DL380 server. The goal is to optimize total i/o throughput
(>50% sequential, < 50% random) in a Windows 2003 terminal server
environment. Multiple simultaneous users and i/o bound jobs expected
with slight emphasis on sequential i/o vs. random i/o.

I have 12 72GB U320 10K drives to play with.
8 drives in a single channel external enclosure.
4 drives in a dual channel internal cage.
Maximum 3 independent channels can be used.

Controllers:
Smart Array 5i 48MB cache (24MB read, 24MB write) with battery backup
1 internal/1 external, 32bit/33Mhz 132MB/sec bandwidth 160MB/sec per
channel
Smart Array 642 64MB cache (64MB read) no battery backup
1 internal/ 1 external 66bit/133Mhz 1066MB/sec bandwidth 320MB/sec per
channel

Suggested configuration

A. 2 drives connected to SA 5i internal channel, Raid 1
for Windows, applications and page file #1 (partition C:)
B. 8 drives connected to SA 642 external channel, Raid 5
for data (partition D:)
C. 2 drives connected to SA 642 internal channel, non-Raid
for temporary processing and page files #2 and #3 (partitions H: and
I:)

In the above, part A is fixed and not optional.

As above, there will be 4 independent spindles to spread i/o across.
Any comments on the above? Will SA 642 be able to handle both Raid array
and non-Raid drives well (i.e. I expect SA 642 to not be a bottleneck)?
How much can throughput be improved by adding battery backup to SA 642
and enabling write cache?

I am also thinking of splitting 8 external drives
into two separate Raid 5 arrays as follows:

D. 8 drives connected to SA 642 external channel,
drives 1-4 Raid 5 (partition D:), drives 5-8 Raid 5 (partition E:).
Mount partition E: to a folder on D: so that only letter D:
could be used for data.

This way there is an extra spindle to spread i/o across,
there is somewhat better redundancy, and 2 x 72GB lost to checksums.
Given that the external enclosure has only one channel,
to what extent option D is better than B?

Other questions:

In addition to the above, I might be able to add a spare drive
for Raid 5 array(s). I presume the procedure to add a spare
is as follows:
1. Plug the drive in (the server can be running).
2. Use Array Configuration Utility in Windows to
mark that drive as a spare. Am I correct?

Thanks in advance for any advice.
Please reply to newsgroup or by e-mail to redrose1k1@_NOSPAM_yahoo.com.

*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
 
IMHO...

If you get to the stage where any of this detailed performance optimization
is really going to make a difference, then you've got a SERIOUS problem.

You don't say what role this server should have. Normally in a TS
environment, you would not mix "server" features like a file server and
"terminal" features like user applications - you keep these on seperate
servers. So is this a TS server, or does it have some other role within the
environment?

You want to be running that external disk rack on a SA6402, not a 642, and
yes, you want the cache battery backup.
Don't waste time, space and energy thinking about non-RAID and extra
partitions. Bad idea.

KISS - Keep Is Simple - don't try to be clever or another sysadmin will come
along and screw things up on a detail they have not understood. Usually when
you're on vacation, and you'll get the blame for it when you get back. Keep
it AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE.

Simple designs are the easiest to support and fix, and the least likely to
screw up (or be screwed up). You want 2HDDs in mirror on the server, and 10
HDDs in the disk array - 9 in RAID5 and 1 hot spare.
 
HP User said:
Hi, I'm looking for advice on the optimal i/o setup
for HP DL380 server. The goal is to optimize total i/o throughput
(>50% sequential, < 50% random) in a Windows 2003 terminal server
environment. Multiple simultaneous users and i/o bound jobs expected
with slight emphasis on sequential i/o vs. random i/o.

I have 12 72GB U320 10K drives to play with.
8 drives in a single channel external enclosure.
4 drives in a dual channel internal cage.
Maximum 3 independent channels can be used.

Controllers:
Smart Array 5i 48MB cache (24MB read, 24MB write) with battery backup
1 internal/1 external, 32bit/33Mhz 132MB/sec bandwidth 160MB/sec per
channel
Smart Array 642 64MB cache (64MB read) no battery backup
1 internal/ 1 external 66bit/133Mhz 1066MB/sec bandwidth 320MB/sec per
channel

Suggested configuration

A. 2 drives connected to SA 5i internal channel, Raid 1
for Windows, applications and page file #1 (partition C:)
B. 8 drives connected to SA 642 external channel, Raid 5
for data (partition D:)
C. 2 drives connected to SA 642 internal channel, non-Raid
for temporary processing and page files #2 and #3 (partitions H: and
I:)

In the above, part A is fixed and not optional.

As above, there will be 4 independent spindles to spread i/o across.
Any comments on the above? Will SA 642 be able to handle both Raid array
and non-Raid drives well (i.e. I expect SA 642 to not be a bottleneck)?
How much can throughput be improved by adding battery backup to SA 642
and enabling write cache?

I am also thinking of splitting 8 external drives
into two separate Raid 5 arrays as follows:

D. 8 drives connected to SA 642 external channel,
drives 1-4 Raid 5 (partition D:), drives 5-8 Raid 5 (partition E:).
Mount partition E: to a folder on D: so that only letter D:
could be used for data.

This way there is an extra spindle to spread i/o across,
there is somewhat better redundancy, and 2 x 72GB lost to checksums.
Given that the external enclosure has only one channel,
to what extent option D is better than B?

Other questions:

In addition to the above, I might be able to add a spare drive
for Raid 5 array(s). I presume the procedure to add a spare
is as follows:
1. Plug the drive in (the server can be running).
2. Use Array Configuration Utility in Windows to
mark that drive as a spare. Am I correct?

Thanks in advance for any advice.
Please reply to newsgroup or by e-mail to redrose1k1@_NOSPAM_yahoo.com.

*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top