• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Hard drive for FTP usage

T

totten

Member
Hi,

I was wondering what HDD is prefered for a ftp server with ~10 users logged in at the same time. Scsi and Sata 10.000 rpm is not an option.
(if it matters, the ftp will mostly hold linux distributions and such, also mirror to other freeware stuff, so everything from ~700MB / file to 2MB / file).

I'm looking at buying two drives, either 120GB or 160GB, depends on price difference.

Thanks!
 
Originally posted by: totten
Hi,

I was wondering what HDD is prefered for a ftp server with ~10 users logged in at the same time. Scsi and Sata 10.000 rpm is not an option.
(if it matters, the ftp will mostly hold linux distributions and such, also mirror to other freeware stuff, so everything from ~700MB / file to 2MB / file).

I'm looking at buying two drives, either 120GB or 160GB, depends on price difference.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

If SCSI or SATA isn't an option, then youre stuck with IDE? Just get the best priced 8pm cache HD you can find. Either Maxtor or WD.
 
10 FTP users is hardly anything. Any drive will do whether it's 2MB or 8MB cache, 5400 or 7200rpm.

Even if you're 10 users could pull 2MB a second (likely less then 200KB/sec) you wouldn't challenge any of the current lineup of 5400rpm 2MB cache drives.

Thorin
 
LikeLinux, SATA 7200 rpm is still OK.

thorin, I'm not good at math but the ftp would be running on 10/100mbit, would 5400 rpm be enough?

thanks for answering guys!
 
100 Mbit ~ 12 MByte, but you won't hit that.
A best/worst(depending on how you look at it) scenario would be 10 MByte/sec of traffic, and even that is unlikely.

I'd go with a Deskstar 180GXP myself, since they've traditionally been good at server duties.
 
Originally posted by: totten
LikeLinux, SATA 7200 rpm is still OK.

thorin, I'm not good at math but the ftp would be running on 10/100mbit, would 5400 rpm be enough?

thanks for answering guys!
Click to expand...
100Mbps = 100Mbps/8bits = 12.5MBps
(Small b = bits, capital B = Bytes)

Any of the current line of 5400rpm drive can easily push more then 12.5MBps

Thorin
 
Keep in mind that there is a problem with some WD drives over 120GB (Special Editions in particular, I believe). When they spin down, they go offline and don't want to wake-up. WD has issued a "firmware-upgrade-that's-not-really-a-firmware-upgrade" to address this issue. They call it an IDE RAID patch or something like that.

-SUO
 
Seek times is more impotant with multiple users connected... as is a buttload of RAM... I'd say go with a couple Western Digital Caviar SE drives with the 8 MB cache. I'd go with the 180 GB models because they use platters with 60 GB per platter, whereas the 120 GB one uses platters with 40 GB per platter. The 60 GB platters will yield slightly higher transfer rates because of the higher areal density.
 
What type of connection will this server have? If it's a T1 connection then a single 7200 RPM drive would do just fine as long as it meets your storage needs. Even a 5400 RPM drive would be ok, except for seek times... but I think it's safe to say even a slow 5400 RPM drive could easily saturate a T1 line.
 
Not sure if WD is the way to go for me since I heard they sound a lot.

Jeff, as it seems now, it will have 10mbit to the Internet and 100mbit inside the LAN. I might get a new computer and make a firewire network (400mbit), but don't know how it performs yet.
 
There's no point switching to FW for networking since almost all FW controllers sit on your PCI bus which is only 133Mbps (the extra "theoretical" 33Mbps isn't gonna make any noticable difference)

Thorin
 
Actually a 33 MHz/32 bit PCI bus is 133 MByte/sec or roughly 1 Gbit.

But I agree anyway, if anything, go for GigE LAN, switches are dropping fast these days.
 
Originally posted by: totten
Not sure if WD is the way to go for me since I heard they sound a lot.

Jeff, as it seems now, it will have 10mbit to the Internet and 100mbit inside the LAN. I might get a new computer and make a firewire network (400mbit), but don't know how it performs yet.
Click to expand...

Seagate's Barracuda V's are quiet drives... and decent performers... just get anything but a Maxtor... especially their "cheap" drives. I've had 2 of them crap out of me for no apparent reason... my friend has gone through 3 of them in his RAID 0 array. The 8 meg cache version may be more "performance oriented" and may be better built... as all the dead Maxtors I've seen have been 2 meg cache version...and most of them were 740DX's.
 
If you are getting 2 drives (I think you said so in your first post) then set up those 2 drives in RAID 0 and it won't matter too much if they're 5400rpm or 7200 w8MB cache, because in RAID 0 they will provide plently of speed, so just go for the 2 cheapest drives you can of the required size (if you are getting 2 drives) and RAID 0 them.
 
Jeff, actually Maxtor had the cheapest 5400rpm 160GB, but since I have no experience with them, yours are so bad, I think I better not choose them.

Yes, there will be two drives, probably running in raid0 because the content won't be that important (can be redownloaded). For more important stuff, if there will be any of it, I was thinking of putting them in a dir, which will be mirrored to another dir on another harddrive. Like Raid1 but with folders instead of harddrives. Is this possible?
 
Originally posted by: Sunner
Actually a 33 MHz/32 bit PCI bus is 133 MByte/sec or roughly 1 Gbit.

But I agree anyway, if anything, go for GigE LAN, switches are dropping fast these days.
Click to expand...
Sorry my bad.....it's been a long day (I just got back after a week off .... that makes Monday even worse then usual). I don't have any experience with FW LAN but I would be very very very surprised if it regularily hits 50MB/Sec (theoretical max), though if it did that would definately challenge most drives on the market.

Thorin
 
5,400rpm drives do just fine on even high demand FTP's. You'd have to have ALOT of people on your FTP for speed issues to come up, and this is coming from a guy who runs an FTP of his own. I've had 23 people on a K6-2 machine with just 2 5,400rpm drives and they've all said the FTP was very quick. Lots of ram helps big time, as you can just cache your entire FTP directory which is obviously going to transfer far faster than most internet connections let you upload in the first place.

FTP is a very low resource operation mostly due to internet bandwidth limitations.
 
10 users? Just get 8MB cache PATA drives (or 2mB if not WD, sinc ethe warranty will still be 1yr) in RAID 1 or RAID 5.
...and RAID and 8MB cache just because it's going to be an FTP server.
As others have said, it doesn't take much of a system. Much like with a web server, memory and network will matter more than hard drives.
 
Originally posted by: totten
For more important stuff, if there will be any of it, I was thinking of putting them in a dir, which will be mirrored to another dir on another harddrive. Like Raid1 but with folders instead of harddrives. Is this possible?
Click to expand...
Possible, yes, but useless for protecting your data from drive failure.
 
Charlie, how would it be useless since if one drive fails, I would have a backup of the important files on another HD?
 
Okay, I reread your post, I misunderstood what you were saying. As long as you have a backup copy on a HD seperate from the RAID 0 array, then you're alright even if the array goes boom.
 
Okay, I reread your post, I misunderstood what you were saying. As long as you have a backup copy on a HD seperate from the RAID 0 array, then you're alright even if the array goes boom.
Click to expand...

Reread his post... he said RAID 1, that's why you're talking crazy. RAID 1 constantly backs up 1 HD to another.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top