• Status: Solved
  • Priority: Medium
  • Security: Public
  • Views: 669
  • Last Modified:

HP DL360 G7's (local storage)

Hi

Budgeting for the above, we are looking at:

additional caddy x8 600gb HDD's (16 HDD in total)
or
caddy - (16x 300gb).  

According to on-line calculator the RAID 6 will be 3600 & 4200 respectively.

Correct?
0
CHI-LTD
Asked:
CHI-LTD
  • 4
  • 3
3 Solutions
 
andyalderSaggar makers bottom knockerCommented:
Do you mean L380 G7, DL360 G7 is only 1U an takes 4 SFF disks standard, 8 with 2nd backplane.

For RAID 6 just take off 2 from total disks and multiply by size, (16-2)*300 = 4200 etc.
0
 
CHI-LTDAuthor Commented:
yes, 380 - sorry.
0
 
andyalderSaggar makers bottom knockerCommented:
Then your calculations are correct for RAID 6 assuming you use the SAS expander so that both backplanes are on the same controller, I prefer to have two separate controllers so there's twice as much cache and the cabling's easier but that does limit you to two arrays of 8 disks. If you do use the expander then get the short SAS cables, it can be done without but there's a lot of cable to get in the way with the long ones going from controller to expander.

Bear in mind the 6 I/Os per write penalty for RAID 6 if it can't write a full width stripe so the more cache the better that will be.
0
What does it mean to be "Always On"?

Is your cloud always on? With an Always On cloud you won't have to worry about downtime for maintenance or software application code updates, ensuring that your bottom line isn't affected.

 
CHI-LTDAuthor Commented:
Sorry i meant 8x 600gb  raid6  =3.6tb
and
16x 300gb raid6 = 4.2tb

16x 600 raid6 = 8.4tb.

yes, we'd go for sas expander.
Which raid woudl you go for this then?  I'd like ability of 2x disk failures but performance also.  Raid5 with spare?
0
 
andyalderSaggar makers bottom knockerCommented:
RAID 10 if you can afford it, it won't tolerate both disks in a mirror failing but short of that you can lose several disks without suffering failure or performance dedgradation. Really depends on how write intensive your application is and how random the data is. I'd avoid RAID 5, although only 4 I/Os per write performance with a disk down is often unusable.
0
 
CHI-LTDAuthor Commented:
thanks, but will lose valuable space with 1+0
0
 
andyalderSaggar makers bottom knockerCommented:
I'd stick to RAID 6 then.
0

Featured Post

Keep up with what's happening at Experts Exchange!

Sign up to receive Decoded, a new monthly digest with product updates, feature release info, continuing education opportunities, and more.

  • 4
  • 3
Tackle projects and never again get stuck behind a technical roadblock.
Join Now