Need recommendation on a disk subsystem

It is for a entry level server. Windows Server 2016 Standard. 26 users (don't want Essentials LOL!). They don't use SQL or any other data intensive apps. Need maybe 1TB usable storage but let's be safe and say two. So what would you recommend as far a fault tolerance and type of drives in this day and age?
LVL 15
LockDown32OwnerAsked:
Who is Participating?
 
Lee W, MVPTechnology and Business Process AdvisorCommented:
4x1TB in a hardware RAID 6 with a GOOD RAID Controller.  That should support the VM file server and the host and allow you to setup replication for off-site disaster recovery while leaving room for a second server whenever needed for RDS, SQL, or other application as necessary.
0
 
LockDown32OwnerAuthor Commented:
Thanks Lee. I don't mean to over simplify but they won't be using VM. This is a very simply, entry level server. What type of drives? SATA? SAS? 15K SAS? SSD?
0
 
Lee W, MVPTechnology and Business Process AdvisorCommented:
That's wrong.  You are shooting the client in the foot if you don't virtualize.  You're throwing away a license for Windows and you're making disaster recovery more difficult.  If you're arguments are any of the following: “It costs too much...”, “It’s too complicated…”, “…I only have a simple workload.” , “Virtualization will slow everything down!” then please read my article: https://www.experts-exchange.com/articles/27799/Virtual-or-Physical.html because those are not good arguments in my opinion and you'll see why.

It's an entry level server.  Why go SSD unless you need the IOPs?  SAS is expensive and in my experience doesn't provide significant advantage.  15K SAS would be nice... but why?  what do they have now?  Are they accessing lots of files regularly?  Or is the average user working with 10 files per day... which means 260 on the server... there's virtually no chance that everyone will access the server simultaneously (a few, sure, but not 26 people) and unless these files are hundreds of MB in size, you just don't need that performance.  Even for a VM, RAID 6 with a good caching controller will give you plenty of throughput.  SATA should be fine.  Enterprise grade SATA but SATA nonetheless.
1
Cloud Class® Course: SQL Server Core 2016

This course will introduce you to SQL Server Core 2016, as well as teach you about SSMS, data tools, installation, server configuration, using Management Studio, and writing and executing queries.

 
LockDown32OwnerAuthor Commented:
I am going to ignore the first part. Just saying 1TB drives is not near enough. Would like a recommendation on the type of drive too. Thanks.
0
 
Cliff GaliherCommented:
I mostly agree. But I do go SAS whenever possible. RAID controllers just handle the extended SAS instruction sets better in a recovery/rebuild scenario. Just like built in RAID is fine most if the time, but bad when it matters, SATA is bad when you need it most. The price difference isn't nearly as high as it used to be.
0
 
Lee W, MVPTechnology and Business Process AdvisorCommented:
So you're going to ignore the warning about putting your client at a disadvantage AND the recommendation for SATA?

Enterprise grade SATA but SATA nonetheless.

I wish your client the best of luck.
0
 
Cliff GaliherCommented:
"I am going to ignore the first part."  I didn't realize who the author was until I read that.  And I swore I'd never respond if I noticed. So please, ignore my advice. I'd delete it if I could.
0
 
LockDown32OwnerAuthor Commented:
Lee the question wasn't about virtualization. It was about hard disk subsystems. I would like to stay focused on the the question posed. I tend to agree with Cliff. The price difference between a 2TB SATA and a 2TB 7.2K 4Kn drive (both enterprise) is maybe $15. I agree that there are a lot of things that aren't worth the price, however minimal, because it  will never be utilized but for $15 wouldn't the performance increase be worth it? Thanks for remembering Cliff.
0
 
Lee W, MVPTechnology and Business Process AdvisorCommented:
If you want more space, get larger drives.  I can't say how much space your client will use or needs.

You find a slight increase in price for the disks worth it, but not the slight increase in complexity to get the benefits of virtualization... I find that odd.

The vast majority of professionals I speak to here, at conferences, on mailing lists, in my user groups, and on other forums recognize the value of virtualization in almost any environment and the folly of not.  I can only provide you the knowledge and resources to understand it yourself.  I can't force you to.
0
 
LockDown32OwnerAuthor Commented:
Lee I might have made the comment a little too gruffly for which I apologize but I want to stay on topic and the topic wasn't virtualization. I did actually read your article and virtualization with only one server is still an ongoing debate.

   It is kind of funny the way the world has gone. As far as Seagate is concerned their entry level 4Kn SAS drive is 2TB. It is a whopping $122! I agree with your choice in RAID 6 but got to tell you something funny. I was told the other day here on EE that RAID 6 will be at End-Of-Life in 2019. Time marches on. Thanks for your input.
0
 
Gerald ConnollyCommented:
RAID-6 stops working in 2019 - that will be this article http://www.zdnet.com/article/why-raid-6-stops-working-in-2019/ which was written in 2010.
0
Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.

All Courses

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.