The Textbook Things Gone Wrong in IT Thread
-
I know it's a consumer grade unit, but the unit has 1 internal bay for "Backup" making it 7 (even though that would be stupid as all gitup).
Which is still not worth it to dig any further for a 6TB SSD NAS.
-
And if we wanted a true 6TB of usable space in RAID10, we'd need 12 drives.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
I know it's a consumer grade unit, but the unit has 1 internal bay for "Backup" making it 7 (even though that would be stupid as all gitup).
But it isn't a NAS chassis, it's only a drive holder. It's not a usable device on its own. It's not applicable at all. That isn't what a NAS is.
The number of bays is one issue, the number of drives though for pricing needs to be 7.
-
Which the MSP is again recommending RAID5. . . . ... . .
-
@DustinB3403 said:
And if we wanted a true 6TB of usable space in RAID10, we'd need 12 drives.
But you don't use RAID 10 on SSD, you use RAID 5. So seven. Trust me, I just went through all of this to figure out what an enterprise storage unit would look like for this use case. $3,400, after RAID. I've been quite clear that I accounted for all of that.
-
Why wouldn't you use RAID10 with SSD's? I must've missed the article.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
Which the MSP is again recommending RAID5. . . . ... . .
But on spinning rust, which alone should have them fired. RAID 5 on spinning drives in unthinkable. On SSD it would be sensible.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
Why wouldn't you use RAID10 with SSD's? I must've missed the article.
Because none of the issues impacting RAID 5 on spinning rust exists on SSD. There are no UREs, rebuild times are practically instantaneous, drive failures were never a factor for serious consideration and the leap in IOPS is so enormous that the performance caveats to RAID 5 are lost in the ability to go from measuring per drive IOPS in the hundreds to the hundreds of thousands.
-
Ah well that makes a lot more sense.
-
And that is a huge part of the cost savings... you only need N+1 drives with SSD, not N*2. So tons more performance, many fewer drives. That lends itself to tons of cost savings.
And because cost effective 2TB SSDs are available now, you can use four of those in RAID 5 and move to a small 1U chassis for all of this!
-
But all of this distracts us from the real solution.... no external storage. No matter how good we can make the external NAS, it's still a bad solution compared to going down to a single server and using internal drive bays.
-
How much do you want to bet that the SAN that is being proposed will be on Spinning Rust? I don't have any details yet, but will fill you in when I get them (likely when everything has already been bought . . . )
-
@DustinB3403 said:
How much do you want to bet that the SAN that is being proposed will be on Spinning Rust?
I would guarantee it. People selling that stuff make no margins on disks, which is why they sell the cheapest disks with RAID 5 passing the risk to the customer and keeping the spend for the things with the margins, like the SAN chassis.
-
Scott on dells site I don't even see an option for a 1 or 2TB SSD.
What were you looking at when pricing?
-
@DustinB3403 said:
Scott on dells site I don't even see an option for a 1 or 2TB SSD.
What were you looking at when pricing?
Amazon. Buy your chassis from xByte. Buy your drives from Amazon.
-
Scott what chassis and drives were you looking at, I can't find anything under $4000 grand all in.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
Scott what chassis and drives were you looking at, I can't find anything under $4000 grand all in.
R630 chassis was like $1400 from xByte and the drives were...
Oh you are right, I was accidentally thinking only three of these drives when calculating the price.
-
Probably the R620, sorry.
You could trim on the chassis a bit, but there is only so much to save, having a high end recent model is probably worth the little extra money.
-
I'm assuming you went with five 2TB drives from Amazon in RAID 5 would would give me 8TB usable.
Correct?
-
Four, giving you six, is what I had intended.
