NFS Server...what to build??
-
@fateknollogee said in NFS Server...what to build??:
@travisdh1 said in NFS Server...what to build??:
@fateknollogee said in NFS Server...what to build??:
@travisdh1 said in NFS Server...what to build??:
Well, first of all I wouldn't do a split array. OBR (One Big RAID), unless you have a very specific reason to do otherwise.
Easy to do with my SM box, since it has 2x 2.5" sleds on the backside running off the onboard SATA.
Just because it's easy to do, doesn't mean you should. Why not just get two more drives for the main array and not loose all that I/O by splitting things up? It's a serious loss of I/O as well when talking about an additional couple of SSDs!
No, there is no (zero) loss of i/o.
The 2 x 2.5" are connected to the onboard RAID.
The 24 x 2.5" are connected to the LSI raid.But there is money thrown away. Tell us "why it isn't SO bad" is in no way the same as tell us "why it is good."
-
@pete-s said in NFS Server...what to build??:
You have a server in a chassi (SC846) just like the pic right? And with the two 2.5" drive bays option in the back next to the PSUs?
When you say sharing files with clients, over what medium? 10Gbe local LAN?
How are the backplane connected to the LSI controller? Is the LSI on the motherboard or PCIe card?The reason I'm asking is to know what speeds we are talking about.
216BE1C-R920LPB
Clients are VM's, sharing could be 10Gbe or 56Gbe
LSI is a PCIe card -
@scottalanmiller said in NFS Server...what to build??:
@fateknollogee said in NFS Server...what to build??:
HW is simple:
- 2x SSD for o/s
- 4 - xx SSD for NFS shares
Why would you have drives for the OS? This both breaks standard storage practices AND assumes a physical install which is a 'no no'.
Why would you assume a physical install ?
I'm installing the hypervisor (in this case FC28) on a Raid1 array of 2x SSDs -
@scottalanmiller said in NFS Server...what to build??:
@fateknollogee said in NFS Server...what to build??:
@travisdh1 said in NFS Server...what to build??:
Well, first of all I wouldn't do a split array. OBR (One Big RAID), unless you have a very specific reason to do otherwise.
Easy to do with my SM box, since it has 2x 2.5" sleds on the backside running off the onboard SATA.
Even if someone did it for you, it's still bad.
No it's not, some folks prefer the one big array, I prefer to keep it separate.
-
Are you considering something like this for your partition scheme?
2x SSD for o/s:
- /boot
- /
- swap partition or swapfile
4 - xx SSD for NFS shares:
- /var/lib/libvirt/images
-
@black3dynamite said in NFS Server...what to build??:
Are you considering something like this for your partition scheme?
2x SSD for o/s:
- /boot
- /
- swap partition or swapfile
4 - xx SSD for NFS shares:
- /var/lib/libvirt/images
Slightly different...UEFI install
2x SSD for o/s:- /
- /boot
- /boot/efi
- swap
4 - xx SSD for NFS shares:
- /data
-
@fateknollogee said in NFS Server...what to build??:
So you want to build an NFS Server to "share" files with other clients.
What o/s would you base this build on...?
Install o/s on bare metal or virtualize?HW is simple:
- 2x SSD for o/s
- 4 - xx SSD for NFS shares
With the high reliability of SSD nowadays, especially certain models why dont you make 1 SSD for OS and make it NVMe drive, and that will leave you SATA ports free, and keep the other as cold spare.
And make the OS well defined and as a state, so even if an issue happens you can run command to rebuild it easily, cause all the data will be on the Shares, and yes the new OS will detect all the RAID volumes automatically.
That said good NVme SSD will last 5-10 years
-
@Emad-R No good reason to pay the premium for nVMe drives just for installing the o/s.
I use Intel S35xx/S36xx - 120GB.
Plenty available on ebay at $50 each! -
@fateknollogee said in NFS Server...what to build??:
@scottalanmiller said in NFS Server...what to build??:
@fateknollogee said in NFS Server...what to build??:
HW is simple:
- 2x SSD for o/s
- 4 - xx SSD for NFS shares
Why would you have drives for the OS? This both breaks standard storage practices AND assumes a physical install which is a 'no no'.
Why would you assume a physical install ?
I'm installing the hypervisor (in this case FC28) on a Raid1 array of 2x SSDsBecause you stated a dedicated array for the OS, not for the hypervisor. I'm only going by what you wrote. If you wanted dedicated for the OS, you'd need it whether you had a hypervisor or not.
-
Yea nVMe drives are overkill for something that doesn't need the performance.
-
@scottalanmiller said in NFS Server...what to build??:
@fateknollogee said in NFS Server...what to build??:
@scottalanmiller said in NFS Server...what to build??:
@fateknollogee said in NFS Server...what to build??:
HW is simple:
- 2x SSD for o/s
- 4 - xx SSD for NFS shares
Why would you have drives for the OS? This both breaks standard storage practices AND assumes a physical install which is a 'no no'.
Why would you assume a physical install ?
I'm installing the hypervisor (in this case FC28) on a Raid1 array of 2x SSDsBecause you stated a dedicated array for the OS, not for the hypervisor. I'm only going by what you wrote. If you wanted dedicated for the OS, you'd need it whether you had a hypervisor or not.
Even still, splitting the arrays for this seems a bit ridiculous. An SSD raid 1 for the hypervisor. . . why?
-
@scottalanmiller said in NFS Server...what to build??:
@fateknollogee said in NFS Server...what to build??:
@scottalanmiller said in NFS Server...what to build??:
@fateknollogee said in NFS Server...what to build??:
HW is simple:
- 2x SSD for o/s
- 4 - xx SSD for NFS shares
Why would you have drives for the OS? This both breaks standard storage practices AND assumes a physical install which is a 'no no'.
Why would you assume a physical install ?
I'm installing the hypervisor (in this case FC28) on a Raid1 array of 2x SSDsBecause you stated a dedicated array for the OS, not for the hypervisor. I'm only going by what you wrote. If you wanted dedicated for the OS, you'd need it whether you had a hypervisor or not.
Understood. Next time, will be more specific
-
@dustinb3403 said in NFS Server...what to build??:
@scottalanmiller said in NFS Server...what to build??:
@fateknollogee said in NFS Server...what to build??:
@scottalanmiller said in NFS Server...what to build??:
@fateknollogee said in NFS Server...what to build??:
HW is simple:
- 2x SSD for o/s
- 4 - xx SSD for NFS shares
Why would you have drives for the OS? This both breaks standard storage practices AND assumes a physical install which is a 'no no'.
Why would you assume a physical install ?
I'm installing the hypervisor (in this case FC28) on a Raid1 array of 2x SSDsBecause you stated a dedicated array for the OS, not for the hypervisor. I'm only going by what you wrote. If you wanted dedicated for the OS, you'd need it whether you had a hypervisor or not.
Even still, splitting the arrays for this seems a bit ridiculous. An SSD raid 1 for the hypervisor. . . why?
Why not?
Personal preference! -
@fateknollogee said in NFS Server...what to build??:
@dustinb3403 said in NFS Server...what to build??:
@scottalanmiller said in NFS Server...what to build??:
@fateknollogee said in NFS Server...what to build??:
@scottalanmiller said in NFS Server...what to build??:
@fateknollogee said in NFS Server...what to build??:
HW is simple:
- 2x SSD for o/s
- 4 - xx SSD for NFS shares
Why would you have drives for the OS? This both breaks standard storage practices AND assumes a physical install which is a 'no no'.
Why would you assume a physical install ?
I'm installing the hypervisor (in this case FC28) on a Raid1 array of 2x SSDsBecause you stated a dedicated array for the OS, not for the hypervisor. I'm only going by what you wrote. If you wanted dedicated for the OS, you'd need it whether you had a hypervisor or not.
Even still, splitting the arrays for this seems a bit ridiculous. An SSD raid 1 for the hypervisor. . . why?
Why not?
Personal preference!Personal preference doesn't make sense here, I get using a RAID1 for the hypervisor if you're extra concerned about a disk failing.
But using SSDs here isn't a value add, more costly per GB.
-
@dustinb3403 said in NFS Server...what to build??:
Personal preference doesn't make sense here, I get using a RAID1 for the hypervisor if you're extra concerned about a disk failing.
But using SSDs here isn't a value add, more costly per GB.
I'm comfortable with the "value add, more costly per GB", I like the extra reliability.
For you, you don't see the value add.
Like I said, it's a personal preference! -
@fateknollogee said in NFS Server...what to build??:
Like I said, it's a personal preference!
We've discussed this before. IT = no personal preference. That's never a thing in IT. To be an IT decision, it must have business value. Technology decisions without business context are consumer decisions. The role of IT is to use technology in the context of business.
-
@fateknollogee said in NFS Server...what to build??:
@dustinb3403 said in NFS Server...what to build??:
@scottalanmiller said in NFS Server...what to build??:
@fateknollogee said in NFS Server...what to build??:
@scottalanmiller said in NFS Server...what to build??:
@fateknollogee said in NFS Server...what to build??:
HW is simple:
- 2x SSD for o/s
- 4 - xx SSD for NFS shares
Why would you have drives for the OS? This both breaks standard storage practices AND assumes a physical install which is a 'no no'.
Why would you assume a physical install ?
I'm installing the hypervisor (in this case FC28) on a Raid1 array of 2x SSDsBecause you stated a dedicated array for the OS, not for the hypervisor. I'm only going by what you wrote. If you wanted dedicated for the OS, you'd need it whether you had a hypervisor or not.
Even still, splitting the arrays for this seems a bit ridiculous. An SSD raid 1 for the hypervisor. . . why?
Why not?
Personal preference!Why not? Because it's a bad idea.
The best explanation ever is because the reason is "personal preference." Personal preference is "IT code" for "I know it's a bad idea, and I know I can't state a reason, but I'm unwilling to use logic in this instance." You see this on sites like SW every day. Loads of "I refuse to do what seems right" because "I don't feel like it" and people use terms like "more than one right answer" or "personal preference" to excuse not having reasons for their actions.
Try telling the CEO that money was spent without any stated reason because "you felt like spending the money" and no other reason. See if he agrees that "personal preference" is an acceptable business spending criteria.
-
@scottalanmiller wouldn't "sunk cost" also fall into the same category here?
"I'm certified in Cisco, so we'll only use Cisco"
-
@fateknollogee said in NFS Server...what to build??:
@scottalanmiller said in NFS Server...what to build??:
@fateknollogee said in NFS Server...what to build??:
@scottalanmiller said in NFS Server...what to build??:
@fateknollogee said in NFS Server...what to build??:
HW is simple:
- 2x SSD for o/s
- 4 - xx SSD for NFS shares
Why would you have drives for the OS? This both breaks standard storage practices AND assumes a physical install which is a 'no no'.
Why would you assume a physical install ?
I'm installing the hypervisor (in this case FC28) on a Raid1 array of 2x SSDsBecause you stated a dedicated array for the OS, not for the hypervisor. I'm only going by what you wrote. If you wanted dedicated for the OS, you'd need it whether you had a hypervisor or not.
Understood. Next time, will be more specific
Since that's a lot of money to spend just for a hypervisor that isn't used, it seems much more rational to use it for an OS than a hypervisor. It's not that there is truly zero value to a dedicated HV array, but it is nearly zero. SSDs, even cheap consumer ones, aren't free. But the value is so low, they'd basically have to be.
