[ale] Onboard RAID

[Brian Mathis]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Michael B. Trausch <mike at trausch.us> wrote:
> On 11/16/2011 04:12 PM, Brian Mathis wrote:
>> There is a world of difference between "hardware" BIOS RAID and a real
>> RAID card like a PERC H700.  Please do not throw both of those things
>> in the same category.
>
> Nobody is doing that.


It is important to make the distinction between fake-RAID and real
hardware RAID.  Up to this point in the thread, this had not been
mentioned.


>> Given the choice between software RAID and BIOS
>> RAID, software RAID is the only real choice.  However, a real RAID
>> card will almost always be the best option, if you have one available.
>
> This is patently false, unless you have knowledge of resources that I do
> not.
>
> Hardware RAID is great---until you no longer have the ability to replace
> the controller with an exactly identical one.  And then you have to rely
> on luck.


Yes, I do have such knowledge.  It's called using a supported,
enterprise-level RAID card with a warranty.  Any server admin worth
their salt is using equipment from a large manufacturer and not
cobbling something together from mail-order parts.  All OEMs provide
warranties and have varying levels of turnaround time for replacement.
 You select the time you need based on the needs of the server,
usually down to 4 hours.  If you need it faster than 4 hours, you can
buy a cold spare at the same time you purchase the server.

If you don't have the budget for that, software RAID works OK too,
depending on the application.  I would also only use software RAID at
levels 0 or 1 -- not on anything that requires a parity calculation
like RAID5.  You probably shouldn't be using RAID5 these days anyway.


>> I haven't used Windows software RAID recently, but I think it will be
>> difficult to get a RAID10 working since the drivers required for
>> accessing the striped data are themselves striped across the disks,
>> rendering them unreadable to the system as it boots.  Windows may use
>> a separate boot partition that is not striped to get around this
>> issue, but you will have to research that (and I'm not sure a Linux
>> user group mailing list is the place to find the best answer).  I'm
>> sure you could test it out in a VM.
>
> I am pretty sure that Windows supports both RAID 0 and RAID 1.  Just
> stack them in the appropriate order.  But I haven't tried it.  If it
> doesn't support those things, then what the heck is it worth anyway?
>
> At least, that's how I feel about it.


My only point was that if it was booting from RAID10, that might be a
problem.  Since this server will be booting from a mirror and only the
data is RAID10, there's probably not an issue here.


>> As for Windows being completely, horribly sucky sucky, please cut it
>> out.  A very large portion of the world uses Windows for rather large
>> file storage on a daily basis, and they don't all constantly crash and
>> burn.  It may not be your preference, so leave it at that.  Linux has
>> its own share of problems.
>
> I administer both Windows and Linux systems for a living.
>
> The Windows boxes are the only ones that constantly need my attention.
> The Linux boxes are more or less fully automated; I log into each of
> them once per week using an automatic tool and patch the systems.
>
> Just for a single one of my clients, in the last week I have had to
> spend more than 10 hours working on problems that simply wouldn't exist
> if Windows weren't in use (or if the stupid person that setup the
> Windows box hadn't made stupid decisions).
>
> If you're going to compare Windows Server and, say, Ubuntu Server,
> you'll find that Ubuntu Server wins pretty much all over the place.  And
> it isn't even the best (IMHO) option out there.  I'm partial to Debian
> for servers, myself.  But I honestly don't care what's running on a
> server as long as it is running well.


Actually I have done such comparisons, and Windows wins in areas like
user authentication (Active Directory) and remote configuration
management (Group Policy).  I have performed audits on both Linux and
Windows servers, and Windows provides a unified way to access all
configuration data (WMI), while Linux uses a giant pile of
non-standard text files.  If you think that's easy to grep through
across multiple distro versions and different software packages, you
are sorely mistaken.

Linux does of course excel in many other areas, but it's certainly not
an across-the-board win.


> Also, my experiences have typically been that given a set of
> requirements and a set of hardware, the solution can almost always be
> more efficiently implemented with Linux on the server.  With the very
> real security and costs problems that Windows presents, it (again, IMHO)
> has no place on a server.  Just because "a very large portion of the
> world uses Windows for rather large file storage on a daily basis"
> doesn't mean squat, other than perhaps that there are a lot of very
> stupid people out there placing a lot of trust in a very historically
> weak and insecure system.  (And every month, that history simply grows
> longer.)
>
> I'll have rational conversation about Windows all day long, but it
> sounds to me like you're either a fanatic or a fan boi, and if that's
> the case, then we haven't anything to discuss.


If you are unable to effectively administer a Windows server, that
only speaks to your own inability to do so.  I'm not saying it's the
greatest thing ever, but it works well enough for many applications.

Calling people stupid or a "fan boy" just because they disagree with
your opinion is a clear sign of a lazy-minded fool.  I guess you only
agree with this post from your own blog when it suits you:
    I am absolutely intolerant of ... people with closed minds

I'm not here to start an OS war, as you seem to be, but I seem to be
the only one having an objective discussion.  And you seem to
emphatically *avoiding* any type if "rational conversation" about it.


>> Finally, why do they include BIOS RAID on systems?  Mainly to have a
>> feature to list on the package.  Incidentally, I don't think I would
>> buy a board for enterprise usage that has such a feature.  Those are
>> typically aimed at the enthusiast market.
>
> It's safe to just ignore it.
>
>> P.S. Please pay attention to whether the replies you receive are top
>> or bottom posted and use the same method to continue the conversation.
>>  I'm not one to care, as long as you are consistent within the same
>> thread.
>
> You should take your own advice:
>    http://news.gmane.org/gmane.org.user-groups.ale


This thread was already messed up with regards to quoting style.  I
was specifically talking to Greg, as he started top posting after you
had already bottom-replied.  Incidentally that link says nothing about
anything, given that I have only posted 4 times to this list and each
time tried to remain consistent with whatever method that thread was
already using.


> Idiot.
>        --- Mike


I had no idea I was dealing with such an uncivilized ass.  I have a
bunch of other words for you too, but I actually have the ability to
contain myself.

I'm sorry it bothers you when someone differs with your opinion, and
the fact is that's all you have: your opinion.  Your anecdotes of
whatever little servers you've run are irrelevant to the fact that
many enterprises large and small successfully use both Linux and
Windows on a day to day basis.  If they did not work, no one would use
them, simple as that.


❧ Brian Mathis