ATA 133 vs SCSI

[brett05]

I currently have an extremely outdated server. It is a Pentium II 300, 128Mb RAM and runs windows NT 4.0 server. It is currently using 3 18Gb SCSI drives in RAID 5, which gives me a capacity of 36Gb. At the moment the server is running at about 34Gb full. The server only services about 15 users and is used as a file server and a domain controller.
I see that I have 2 options-->

1. Upgrade to 3 new IBM 36Gb SCSI drives at a cost of about $900 (Australian) each. Total would be about $2700, and I would still have the old slow server just with added storage space.

2. Ditch the old server and build a new "high end" PC using the latest motherboard based RAID 0 technology and a pair of 80Gb ATA 133 hard drives. I could achieve this for around $2200. I know that this will not provide the same level of fault tolerance as the RAID 5 system, but this is acceptable. My main concern with this option is over the speed of the old system (SCSI) compared with that of the new system. Will the access speeds of these drives create a network bottleneck?

Does anyone have any suggestions for me to steer me in the right direction.

Thanks
Brett

 

[ChampionAtTufshop]

wtih 15 ppl its not that many...but still could tremendously slow down depending on usage

theres no diff between ata100 and ata133 performance wise, even ata100 is barely being used (if even)

maybe look into the western digital/maxtor 8mb cahce drives, they are supposedly good for file transfers and stuff

 

[Bovinicus]

Well, you might actually get some higher sustained transfer rates. If you get a drive with an 8MB buffer, it will improve I/O performance quite a bit. Access time is the only thing to slow you down. Also, you could get some fault tolerance by buying another 2 80GB IDE drives and making a RAID 0+1 array; it would still be cheaper than your first option. If it is only serving 15 people I highly doubt it would be too much for the system. The extra memory of a new system should boost performance a lot, and the CPU power will help tremendously too.

 

[Xtremetechie]

If you go the "High end PC route" for a small server be sure to overload it with physical memory and I would get premium ecc modules they really make a difference in servers.

 

[brett05]

Gee you guys are quick with your replies.
I will give you an idea of some of the other components that I am planning on using -->

--> 2 x Western digital 7200rpm with 8 Mb cache
--> pentium 4 2.4Ghz (minimum)
--> 512Mb PC 2700 RAM (is this enough?? should I opt for 1 Gb?)
--> Gigabyte 8PE667 Ultra motherboard
--> 3Com 10/100 ethernet card

Also, to Xtremetechie, what are ecc modules? Can you please elaborate for me.

Thanks

Brett

 

[MedicBob]

ECC is error checking memory, ECC Memory Explaination

 

[ChampionAtTufshop]

there are some cold boot issues and others with i845pe chipstes, just thought id let ya know

id go for 1gb ram (256-512 is like whats needed in a normal system imo hehe)

ecc in short corrects/checks data for errors as it passes in/out
better for server applications as long as board suports it

 

[Xtremetechie]

ECC stand for error checking code, it makes sure the ram reports properly and corrects errors in this process. It prevents frequent page faults which can really cut server performance especially in an environment where many clients are leveraging the resources of the box. Most servers come with ecc memory standard. Ecc makes a noticable difference in performace and is well worth the few extra bucks the RAM will cost. Hope this helps.

 

[Xtremetechie]

Good link Medic Bob

 

[DannyBoy]

Whatever you do dont buy IBM HDD's :| They are disgusting un-reliable things :|

I would go for an athlon MP processor, or if your going to be spending bucks why not chip in for a p4, 3.06 HT enabled processor?

2 Virtual Processor's have been prooven to be better than one in certain applications, who knows if your running a server it might help out a considerable amount.

ECC is a must though, i highly say go for 1gig ECC.

Regards
Dan

 

[Sunner]

If it's only a WinNT box doing fileserving and acting as a PDC for 15 users, 256 MB will be fine, 512 will be more than fine, and 1 GB will be way overkill.
Heck our old PDC/Fileserver is a P3-500 with 128 MB RAM, and it never has any problems serving some 50 users.

Oh and the myth about IBM drives being unreliable is just BS these days, some people just can't seem to forgive IBM for the 75GXP fiasco, I've yet to see anyone prove that there's something wrong with the 120GXP or 180GXP series.

I might as well start complaining about WD for their older Caviar drives, those were extremely unreliable, but they're not a good indication about WD's currect Caviars, just like the 75GXP's are not an indication about the 180GXP's.

Oh and if it's a fileserver, just go RAID-1, or RAID 0+1, heck even a single disk would be better than RAID-0 in this case IMO.
Unless you just store junk on it that is

 

[Pariah]

"If it's only a WinNT box doing fileserving and acting as a PDC for 15 users, 256 MB will be fine, 512 will be more than fine, and 1 GB will be way overkill."

I echo these sentiments. 1GB would be wasteful.

I'd go the SCSI route out of the 2 choices you gave. The server you have now is plenty fast for a PDC/file server, especially considering how few people use it. The increased throughput of RAID is basically completely lost on the low throughput of the network. The much better access time of SCSI drives will create a more responsive server regardless of network capabilities. ATA RAID-0 and file server should never be used in the same sentence. Additionally you can boost the current server's RAM up to 256MB which may yield some performance gains as well.

"Whatever you do dont buy IBM HDD's They are disgusting un-reliable things"

We can argue all day about the 75GXP, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with IBM's SCSI drives, and never has been, so stop with these inaccurate claims.

 

[DaFinn]

Whatever you do dont buy IBM HDD's They are disgusting un-reliable things

I call BS on this! 1 LINE GONE BAD HARLY JUSTIFIES BLAMING ALL IBM IS BAD. I have plenty of IBM SCSI drives in the office, and NEVER have any of them failed on me. IBM SCSI drives are among the most reliable stuff out there. The new 180GXP should also be very good!


-DaFinn

 

[sharkeeper]

For a PDC, I would stick with SCSI drives. Whatever you do, do NOT even think about striping two IDE disks! I don't trust RAID1 on onboard RAID controllers, especially Highpoint. Every one I've tried fails my Exchange server stress test and corrupts the damn priv1.edb file. You can almost bet it will happen in the real world. If you work with Exchange and like headaches, go for it!

If you insist on ATA disks to save space, invest in a 3Ware controller and (at least) a pair of good ATA disks such as the WD 800JB.

As far as overkill with RAM, there is no such thing as overkill with ram. If you put 1GB in there, it WILL help as all unused memory will be used to cache files being R/W to the disks. This helps tremendously especially if multiple users are grabbing the same files simultaneously. Just make SURE you have a decent UPS!

I call BS on this! 1 LINE GONE BAD HARLY JUSTIFIES BLAMING ALL IBM IS BAD. I have plenty of IBM SCSI drives in the office, and NEVER have any of them failed on me. IBM SCSI drives are among the most reliable stuff out there. The new 180GXP should also be very good!

First, you're comparing ultrastars to deathstars! IBM SCSI drives NEVER had the reliability (or lack of it!) the 75, 60, 120GXP deathstars did. It's too early to tell if 180GXP's will follow suit. They have already left a bad taste in my mouth. No more IBM for me! Where one sees smoke it's safe to assume there is a fire. The discussions about IBM ATA disk reliability are more long winded than religious debates! Caveat Emptor.

Cheers!

 

[samgau]

Doesn't your raid controller have an extra scsi port on it (50pin or 68pin) If so, you can just grab 2 larger scsi drives (36gbs are good) and just run software raid 1 on em, or get a good ata raid card and a couple drives and do hardware raid 1 on em and move your home directory to the new volume...

You are looking at about US$400 for 2 scsi drives and about US$350 for ATA solution (120gbs + controller)

And as for Memory... wouldn't hurt bumping what you have to 512Mb... heck even 384 would be enough (1 stick of 256)... and I agree with the folks above... if your Mobo supports it, get some ECC ram...

peace