Windows 2003 software Raid-5

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

drag

Elite Member
Jul 4, 2002
8,708
0
0
Ya, linuxbios is pretty neat. It's commonly used in clusters were it provides much better management and much faster boot up speeds. When your dealing with hundreds of nodes it's nice to be able to bring everything up in minutes vs a hour or so. Carefull with it, it replaces your BIOS completely and it wouldn't be fun if it didn't work out.

But that's not quite what I am talking about. It's related, though.

With recent Linux kernels (2.6.13 and newer) they added a new capability called 'kexec'. Kexec is designed to allow you to boot up with one operating system kernel, but then switch to a different one without rebooting. So theoreticly you should be able to eventually upgrade your kernel without rebooting.

What they would like to do is create a new style bootloader based on the Linux kernel called 'kboot'. This way you can use a minimalist linux environment with linux-based tools for accessing hardware and network resources and still then from there boot up into whatever system you'd like. The problem with lilo and grub, in this case, is that they have their own special drivers and own special environments for doing stuff and thus are limited. With kboot you can do anything that a normal linux system can do in preparing the environment for the final operating system to boot up in.

I don't know how all something like Windows would fit into all that. It's all a bit above my head.

I don't understand all of it see from the last linux symposium: https://ols2006.108.redhat.com/
specificly: https://ols2006.108.redhat.com/reprints/almesberger-reprint.pdf

Also maybe check out 'linux as a hypervisor'. A hypervisor is a sort of program or miniture environment that sits between your real operating system and the hardware for setting up a virtual environment. So instead of running a VM inside your OS like you would do with VMware workstation or Quemu or Microsoft Virtual Server.. all the operating systems would run in a VM side by side. Kinda neat idea. Stuff that IBM has been doing with their mainframes for 30 years now (no kidding). x86 is finally catching up. :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypervisor

So you can see how that would all tie into each other. Now new hardware allows x86 to be abstracted easier with no software emulation.. Also in the future things like a new PCIexpress extensions will allow operating systems to directly access hardware resources and still be managed by a hypervisor.. (right now with Xen/Linux your setting up hardware volumes in Linux and virtual network devices for client operating systems to use).

Also if your using shared storage and have enough RAM resources aviable you can migrate running operating systems from machine to machine with no downtime. Xen folks once setup a demo test of Linux host running a Quake3 server. While people were playing on it they migrated the OS image from one machine to another without the gaming clients even noticing it. I knew a fella that migrated a server farm from one geographical location to another to avoid the hurricaines from last year in a similar manner.
 

kobymu

Senior member
Mar 21, 2005
576
0
0
Originally posted by: drag
Ya, linuxbios is pretty neat. It's commonly used in clusters were it provides much better management and much faster boot up speeds. When your dealing with hundreds of nodes it's nice to be able to bring everything up in minutes vs a hour or so. Carefull with it, it replaces your BIOS completely and it wouldn't be fun if it didn't work out.

[rant]
This (for some odd reason) reminders me of just how cheap yesterday generation motherboard are (the simple office stations ones, not the everything and the kitchen sink ones). In the pentium 2/3 cheap capacitors fiasco days, i one day get into the office and I see two big boxes. So i open them up and imagine my confusion when i see its 20 x2 motherboard in an OEM package, as in the same ones that dies on us at the frightening speed of 2-3 a week (we just reached the year-plus magic point when they all suddenly start to die). I then go to my boss and i give him my WTF?!? look (my boss is an old timer that started his career in DEC, that think that bashing microsoft is just too easy so he bashes UNIX every chance he gets), and he's like "yeah i know, stupid isn't" and i'm like "you know we just bought 40 motherboard with a year and half life expectancies" and he goes "i shouldn?t have told the ceo we can get them for 20$ a pop in large quantities" and i go "20$?(!!!)" and he goes "yeah well, at least now they cost what they actually worth".
[/rant]

But that's not quite what I am talking about. It's related, though.

With recent Linux kernels (2.6.13 and newer) they added a new capability called 'kexec'. Kexec is designed to allow you to boot up with one operating system kernel, but then switch to a different one without rebooting. So theoreticly you should be able to eventually upgrade your kernel without rebooting.

What they would like to do is create a new style bootloader based on the Linux kernel called 'kboot'. This way you can use a minimalist linux environment with linux-based tools for accessing hardware and network resources and still then from there boot up into whatever system you'd like. The problem with lilo and grub, in this case, is that they have their own special drivers and own special environments for doing stuff and thus are limited. With kboot you can do anything that a normal linux system can do in preparing the environment for the final operating system to boot up in.

I don't know how all something like Windows would fit into all that. It's all a bit above my head.

I don't understand all of it see from the last linux symposium: <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="https://ols2006.108.redhat.com/">https://ols2006.108.redhat.com/</a>
specificly: <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="https://ols2006.108.redhat.com/reprints/almesberger-reprint.pdf">https://ols2006.108.redhat.com/reprints/almesberger-reprint.pdf</a>

Also maybe check out 'linux as a hypervisor'. A hypervisor is a sort of program or miniture environment that sits between your real operating system and the hardware for setting up a virtual environment. So instead of running a VM inside your OS like you would do with VMware workstation or Quemu or Microsoft Virtual Server.. all the operating systems would run in a VM side by side. Kinda neat idea. Stuff that IBM has been doing with their mainframes for 30 years now (no kidding). x86 is finally catching up. :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypervisor

So you can see how that would all tie into each other. Now new hardware allows x86 to be abstracted easier with no software emulation.. Also in the future things like a new PCIexpress extensions will allow operating systems to directly access hardware resources and still be managed by a hypervisor.. (right now with Xen/Linux your setting up hardware volumes in Linux and virtual network devices for client operating systems to use).

Also if your using shared storage and have enough RAM resources aviable you can migrate running operating systems from machine to machine with no downtime. Xen folks once setup a demo test of Linux host running a Quake3 server. While people were playing on it they migrated the OS image from one machine to another without the gaming clients even noticing it. I knew a fella that migrated a server farm from one geographical location to another to avoid the hurricaines from last year in a similar manner.

Now what I would like to see is an OS that can migrate to a newer version of itself while still serving its clients on the same hardware i.e. installing & loading the new OS in some kind of way (probably through one of virtualization technique), migrate all the setting from the old one to the new one, and then running side by side, giving me time to take the original OS off the air step by step until i can determine the newer OS is in a good enough shape to uninstall the original OS completely. Now that could be awesome.
 

Madwand1

Diamond Member
Jan 23, 2006
3,309
0
76
Originally posted by: Tran
The issue defenitly lies in the Raid-5 part though, as i don't expirience this when i set the array up in spanned or striped mode.

I'm really at a loss here, i've read about tons of people using win2003 raid-5 without any issues on mid range home servers, but no matter what i do it sucks for me :(

While Windows RAID 5 write performance is nothing to write home about, your performance seems to be an order-of-magnitude worse than usual, and is worse than what I've seen.

I suggest getting something like HD Tune and seeing if your drives have write caching and read-ahead, etc., enabled. Don't read too much into the RAID 0/1 performance, because RAID 5 is much more stressful to your system.

I further suggest trying to eliminate everything else such as network and other drive accesses -- and using a local synthetic benchmark for diagnosis. E.g HD Tach, IoMeter, even SiS Sandra.
 

kobymu

Senior member
Mar 21, 2005
576
0
0
I further suggest trying to eliminate everything else such as network and other drive accesses -- and using a local synthetic benchmark for diagnosis. E.g HD Tach, IoMeter, even SiS Sandra.
This, with this part -
I did try to reinstall win2003 on my desktop computer, which is a 3500+ AMD with 1 gbyte RAM, with the exact same issue. My 3500+ computer even has 8 built in SATA connectors and i tried spreading the drives over those and no diffrence.
- gave me an idea, as a 'last resort' suggestion, since you already tried the same OS on two different systems, try win2k.

In one of the many support call I had with a guy from microsoft, concerning a really old DOS application (long story), the guy said "just install win98 on that machine if that application is so important " and I go "i don?t have a spare win98 license" and he said "it doesn't matter, if that machine have a license for a mircosoft OS you can install any equivalent older OS with volume keys". Now I don?t know if that?s a rule or an exception to the rule (doesn't apply to servers?), so you should call Microsoft yourself and make sure.