buliding a new raid system, need some comments

[ShadowAvatar]

Ok guys, I'm at a quandry on what to build for my system

Here's what I currently have:
An Adaptec 3210S w/ 256MB of RAM - that's a two channel /160 RAID 0,1,5,0/1,0/5 caching PCI-66/64 controller for all yall that don't know. 😉
2x Quantum 10K 18GB /160 currently RAID-1
1x IBM 10K 18GB /80 (in RMA), otherwise I'd be running RAID-5
I also have dual channel /160 adaptec 7899 chipset on my MB, running my UltraPlex Max's.
(it's on my Tyan S2642 2x 1.2GHz w/ 1GB DDR for those of you already drooling)

I've been thinking about abandoning SCSI for a ATA RAID 5 array... but my dark side is tempting me with some X15 Cheetahs. However, 3 of them would set me back almost $1K. and that seems hard to justify in the light of cheap, high-end ATA equipment So what's the call against say,
An Adaptec 2400A w/ 128MB or 3WARE Escalade 7410
and say 3 or 4 WD 80GB 1000BB-SE's (RAID 01 or 5)
or something similar?

Anyone have some specs on how to compare these setups? I'd be willing to run some benchmarks on my setup if there's enough curiosity.

I use my system 16 hours a day, I like to reboot about once a month, and want things fast, but redudant is necessary (no RAID 0). I have a separate server for my mass storage needs, so the fact that the IDE solution gives me 4 times as much storage isn't critical, but seems very practical from the $$$ standpoint?

I'll also be adding a DVD and new CDRW, was thinking Plextor 305S and xxx?? But there are comparable IDE models just as ready, so not a big deal there either.

 

[Athlon4all]

You want redundancy, one word.........................................................SCSI. Stick with your current setup. IDE is much less reliable compared to SCSI. If u can go for Cheetah X15's then do it, but don't go back to IDE. You will be very sorry. I wish I had a setup like that.

 

[Rickten]

 

[BraeBrae]

<< You want redundancy, one word.........................................................SCSI. Stick with your current setup. IDE is much less reliable compared to SCSI. If u can go for Cheetah X15's then do it, but don't go back to IDE. You will be very sorry. I wish I had a setup like that. >>



If someone is looking for RAID redundancy (as opposed to striping) they can do this with W2KS and a couple of cheaper SCSI (or even IDE) disks. Moving from 10K to 15K SCSI disks does absolutely nothing for REDUNDANCY, but does wonders for throughput performance. Thus, if disk performace (I/O) is the objective RAID=0 should be the discussion. So, which is it? Is the original poster looking for disk performance (striping, a la RAID 0), redundancy (mirroring, a la RAID 1), or both (a la RAID 0+1)?

I can easily setup Windows 2000 Server with disimilar IDE drives (non-similar sizes, ATA rating, partitions, etc.) for RAID 1 conditions, and if the primary drive fails break that mirror and recover nicely. No need for SCSI or IDE-SCSI. True redundancy can go beyond mirroring another drive on the same channel (IDE or SCSI), controller, and computer. It all depends on exactly how much redundancy you are looking for.

For strict I/O performance in an environment of money growing on trees ... I'd buy a couple of the best SCSI controllers out there with two of the fastest SCSI drives known to man (at the cost of low capacity, of course), and configure in a pure RAID-0 manner.