@scottalanmiller said:

@Dashrender said:

@scottalanmiller said:

He does have on board hardware RAID. The problem is not his card but his hot swap bays.

You mean because of the lack of empty caddies? Sure I understand that, but I addressed that in my post.

oh, meaning rip the caddies off. I didn't understand what you were implying. That makes more sense.

Exactly. I've considered doing the same for my HP server.

@BRRABill said:

It seems as though you can install another DC, then replicate, then demote the EVAL one.

But I think I'll just go with not doing that. 🙂

Yes, it wouldn't be a functional AD if you could not do that. You risk schema issues, though.

I still have it around if you want to test.

@alvama said:

Scott, thank you for your topic. I am planning new installation and comparing between RAID 10 and RAID 5 on ssd drives. What do you think about stripe size and TBW for two types of raid? Do you know what size of blocks will be written on disks if service (sql for example) writes 8Kb on volume. For raid10 I think it will be two 8K blocks on mirror disks. But for RAID 5 it will be two blocks with size=stripe size and may be 32 or 64K. And in raid5 configuration TBW limit will be reached faster.

I'm not Scott but in your context RAID5 seems to be preferred. Because 1) Flash and not spinning disk used so typical parity RAID issues associated with high-capacity spinners are gone (see URL below) 2) Database logs are sequential writes of a big sizes so should "touch" maximum amount of spinners possible and because of sequential nature read-modify-write is not going to happen and 3) RAID5 gives you write performance of (N-1) and RAID10 does (N/2) (where N = amount of spinners).

https://slog.starwindsoftware.com/raid-5-was-great-until-high-capacity-hdds-came-into-play-but-ssds-restored-its-former-glory/

Good luck 🙂

Those little Atom processors that they tend to use (I miss the Sparc32 days, it was just more interesting) use very little electrical power and produce very little heat and tend to last for forever. Pretty much unbeatable.

He's from NZ. We've spoken offline before.

@scottalanmiller said:

SATA SSDs often make sense because they are cheaper and the protocol benefits of SAS really are not there in the same ways for SSDs.

So this brings up @DustinB3403 question of best practice or more aptly as you @scottalanmiller said implementation patterns - which ones as generically as you can be would go which way. I suppose it might be easier to say 'in these set of circumstances (list 1-4) you do this, generally in the rest you do that.'

I would recommend looking at StarWind SA for example.
That solution fits your requirements perfectly, it will also provide you with HA storage that will ensure the business continuity.
As for support, they offer a single point of contact no matter what issue you face, plus the system will be shipped to your site fully preconfigured and pretested.

@scottalanmiller said in What is FakeRAID?:

@Dashrender said in What is FakeRAID?:

Did this pop up again at SW?

Again today, too. Apparently Lenovo is selling FakeRAID on their "servers" now along with all of the other problems. Of course, if a machine has FakeRAID, it's not a server by any normal definition.

WOW... just wow - as if they couldn't fall any further, and they find a way...

@Dashrender said:

@MattSpeller said:

@Dashrender exactly, there are much better ways to set that kinda thing up - I think we're still looking for a scenario where dude-buddy-guy from SW forums would be right. He may just be 100% wrong.

well, again, my friends suggested reason, lack of personnel resources in times of emergency, could be a reason.

No, it makes investment in spares make sense but still doesn't justify preemptive, it would do the opposite. Having spares is what you do when you don't have available labour, not burning them up and throwing them out.

@Breffni-Potter said:

@Bob-Beatty said:

@Breffni-Potter I agree with everything Scott says, with the exception of stopping at strange bars in the middle of the jungle at 10:00 at night.

Are you honestly telling me it was just the "one" thing you disagreed with? 🙂

I suspect there might be a few more bar visits you would object to if you cast your mind back.

haha! I.. cant.... remember too many bar visits with Scott, or I may agree with your comment... 😛

The idea that causing a system to fail would be routine maintenance is just.... I have no idea. Imagine crashing a car, just a little, to cause the airbags to deploy so that you get fresh ones installed once every 50,000 miles. That just doesn't make sense.

i have done this process for one server ya

Like the afternoon equivalent of a mimosa? Nice.

So HP engineering said that this should work but they had not tested it. Make sure you are fully up to date on the firmware and the P410 should be able to go to the P400 safely. But.... caveat emptor, of course.

@scottalanmiller said:

@dafyre said:

If it's a cloud system why are you using RAID 10 with it?

I didn't build it.

Sure... Sure... Blame it on the other guys... If you can't fix it the easy way, at least you have a chance to redo it right. 🙂

@scottalanmiller said:

This means that resilvers expected to fail when we look at the math model that only gives has an average (mean) failure rate we get successful resilver after success resilver. This also means that array expansion operations (replacing one drive at a time with a larger drive) would also be far more likely to be successful than expected based solely on the math averages.

And that's how my boss got away with it heheh (well so far)