Does anyone know a good solution for a cheap (weak) server with lots and lots of removable drive trays (e.g. so you can have 40 removable hard drives)?
Server w. lots of removable drive trays
- Thread starter coolVariable
- Start date
mnewsham
Lifer
- Oct 2, 2010
- 14,539
- 428
- 136
mvbighead
Diamond Member
- Apr 20, 2009
- 3,793
- 1
- 81
Well, cheap and 40 removable trays don't exactly go hand in hand, so your recommendation seems to be the best cheap fit for what the OP is looking for.
this looks great - especially the second one.
It looks like this just hooks up to a separate server via USB, correct?
Or is there a server inside this (there are no specs listed)?
These are cases with expander backplanes. The specs list the motherboards they will work with. You'll need a full server's worth of hardware (motherboard, CPU, RAM, RAID/HBA/whatever, SAS/SATA connections to the backplane(s), an OS, etc.
What are you trying to do with this? Capacity/performance/reliability?
Any particular reason you don't want to use something closer to a SAN or even DAS arrays?
Viper GTS
What are you trying to do with this? Capacity/performance/reliability?
Any particular reason you don't want to use something closer to a SAN or even DAS arrays?
Viper GTS
Putting together a project for multiple individual clients (~40) each of which will need to own their individual harddrive to store a couple of files on.
Do you know if you can buy a server like this, i.e. with 40+ drive hot swappable trays, pre-assembled?
Don't really care about cost (considering I was quoted $3000 from a hosting provider to lease PART of the hardware!!!)
Can you expand on "a couple of files"? Buying a hard drive (and rack space, power, etc) for each user seems horribly wasteful. Not to mention dangerous since you'd have no redundancy of any kind with what you're describing.
How much storage space do these clients actually need, and how much performance do you need (IOPS, random r/w, sequential r/w).
Devoting a physical disk for each client is not the way this should be done in 2011. Some form of virtualized storage space on top of a larger storage array is where you need to be looking.
Viper GTS
How much storage space do these clients actually need, and how much performance do you need (IOPS, random r/w, sequential r/w).
Devoting a physical disk for each client is not the way this should be done in 2011. Some form of virtualized storage space on top of a larger storage array is where you need to be looking.
Viper GTS
+1, it sounds as though you have the funds to do this right, may as well do so. Buy SATA/SAS RAID cards, configure a RAID array, then virtualize the space from that.
Like others said, the recommended products are cases full of SATA backplanes with room for a motherboard (and the rest of the server components). They don't make anything having near this drive capacity that would connect with USB, nor would they bother. Anyone that would need the kind of storage allowed by this many bays isn't going to be looking to connect it via USB.
However, they do make them that can connect to SAS, though at that point you'd still need another case to hold the rest of the server, so it's arguably saving you rack space to buy one of the cases already suggested over something that connects to SAS. HOWEVER, a big bonus of the SAS cases is that you get all that HD heat away from your MB. Either way, the biggest I can find that'll connect to SAS is 24 bays; they are this or this. There is also this, which is cheaper. However, it is cheaper because it doesn't have the SAS expander built in.
Last edited:
It's a legal requirement that each client gets one HDD. There is no point arguing how stupid that is. It is still cheaper to give each client ONE HDD than going out and setting up 50 individual servers.
Each client will probably store a couple of files for a total of 300GB-500GB on each HDD. I am waiting to get the specs but it could be one 500GB file per client (so I am thinking 750GB - 1TB drives for each one).
The expectation is that it will be set and forget with each of the HDDs being accessed maybe ONCE by ONE user over a 10 year period. It's set and forget. The point of the server is that each HDD is somehow accessible if it is demanded by the client.
We will likely request that the server gets taken offline and is powered down unless someone specifically requests access to their file(s). Otherwise, the server will maybe need to be started once(!) a year to check file integrity and get OS updates.
Therefore, speed is not an issue ... these could be IDE drives as far as IOPS, r/w, etc are concerned. As such a USB would absolutely suffice from a technical requirement point of view. The server therefore should also be as cheap as possible.
We will probably get some full server backup (of all HDDs) at the hosting provider.
Each client will need to have the option to go to our storage provider and demand that his harddrive is taken out of the server and handed out to the client on demand (though I would be surprised if any of them do so), so I am looking at hot swappable rackmounts.
correct me, if I am wrong, but wouldn't I also be able to go with one (or more) of the below PLUS have one server that these connect to?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-046-_-Product
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-047-_-Product
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-038-_-Product
Each client will probably store a couple of files for a total of 300GB-500GB on each HDD. I am waiting to get the specs but it could be one 500GB file per client (so I am thinking 750GB - 1TB drives for each one).
The expectation is that it will be set and forget with each of the HDDs being accessed maybe ONCE by ONE user over a 10 year period. It's set and forget. The point of the server is that each HDD is somehow accessible if it is demanded by the client.
We will likely request that the server gets taken offline and is powered down unless someone specifically requests access to their file(s). Otherwise, the server will maybe need to be started once(!) a year to check file integrity and get OS updates.
Therefore, speed is not an issue ... these could be IDE drives as far as IOPS, r/w, etc are concerned. As such a USB would absolutely suffice from a technical requirement point of view. The server therefore should also be as cheap as possible.
We will probably get some full server backup (of all HDDs) at the hosting provider.
Each client will need to have the option to go to our storage provider and demand that his harddrive is taken out of the server and handed out to the client on demand (though I would be surprised if any of them do so), so I am looking at hot swappable rackmounts.
correct me, if I am wrong, but wouldn't I also be able to go with one (or more) of the below PLUS have one server that these connect to?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-046-_-Product
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-047-_-Product
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-038-_-Product
Last edited:
Of the three enclosures that you linked, I'd go with the DS-24E because it has a built-in expander. Otherwise you're going to eat up all your savings in HBAs.
Yowch, that is some really wierd shit that you're dealing with there. However, given your requirements, there is a much better solution: tape. Since the data does not need to be anywhere near online (one access in 10 years), then a single tape drive and a pile of tapes is all you need. Tapes will last 30 years if kept in a climate controlled environment.
Also, 10 years is a long time to expect a SATA drive to last unless you absolutely know that funds will be available to migrate the drives. If the data is as important as it sounds, you'll need some sort of backup anyway, making take a more attractive option.
Yowch, that is some really wierd shit that you're dealing with there. However, given your requirements, there is a much better solution: tape. Since the data does not need to be anywhere near online (one access in 10 years), then a single tape drive and a pile of tapes is all you need. Tapes will last 30 years if kept in a climate controlled environment.
Also, 10 years is a long time to expect a SATA drive to last unless you absolutely know that funds will be available to migrate the drives. If the data is as important as it sounds, you'll need some sort of backup anyway, making take a more attractive option.
Yeah...and they have tape systems with cartridge loaders that can hold crap tons of tapes. Of course, tapes don't hold 1 TB.
To be honest, though, you're spending a lot of money to have a bunch of hard drives sitting there never to be used or even operational. Plus, I'd venture that it's not as reliable as a tape. But...it's your / your client's money.
I'd also like to mention that there is a good reason people here are raising eyebrows...what you're doing isn't normal...you may want to sit back and think about exactly why you're doing it. But, again, if someone's come to you can said "do it like this" then...well...hey, do what you gotta do. I'm just saying it's atypical for a reason the least of which is it's not economical.
I mean really...consider that you've said "we may even turn the computer off and fire it up only when a client needs to access it." Well...catalog the hard drives and store them safely, then get a few hot swap bays and, when you fire on the computer, pop in the right drive. That'll do a few things for you:
1) Save you money on the bays and controllers.
2) Save you power having the system on with all the drives
3) Drives will last longer the less they are powered on...so...if only one of forty-odd drives is needed at a time, spinning up all forty means there's a chance any of the forty die. They'd be safer on a shelf.
To be honest, though, you're spending a lot of money to have a bunch of hard drives sitting there never to be used or even operational. Plus, I'd venture that it's not as reliable as a tape. But...it's your / your client's money.
I'd also like to mention that there is a good reason people here are raising eyebrows...what you're doing isn't normal...you may want to sit back and think about exactly why you're doing it. But, again, if someone's come to you can said "do it like this" then...well...hey, do what you gotta do. I'm just saying it's atypical for a reason the least of which is it's not economical.
I mean really...consider that you've said "we may even turn the computer off and fire it up only when a client needs to access it." Well...catalog the hard drives and store them safely, then get a few hot swap bays and, when you fire on the computer, pop in the right drive. That'll do a few things for you:
1) Save you money on the bays and controllers.
2) Save you power having the system on with all the drives
3) Drives will last longer the less they are powered on...so...if only one of forty-odd drives is needed at a time, spinning up all forty means there's a chance any of the forty die. They'd be safer on a shelf.
Why yes, yes they do.
Modern tapes top out at 4TB uncompressed (IBM TS1140).For the OP's uses, it sounds like he wouldn't need to even go for an automated tape library (though that is of course always an option). It sounds like the access is infrequent enough such that he could just buy a standalone tape drive and a bunch of tapes.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 18K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
Facebook
Twitter