# Hardware or software RAID?



## beorning (Apr 14, 2006)

I'm going to be slapping a file/print server together in the near future and would like to set up RAID 1. Ubuntu 8.10 server is the planned OS. The budget is a little tight so I can't afford anything better than a cheap RAID controller. The motherboard I'll be using does not support onboard RAID. 

So the question is should I spend $20 on a cheap PCI card or use software RAID instead? I'll be taking a Linux server class that will cover RAID configuration next semester so I'm not too worried about it being difficult to configure. Any thoughts?


----------



## Labrat407 (Aug 24, 2007)

How cheap/tight is your budget?
I found an Asus server with 2 CPU's and Ram for $80 and got 15 32 GB SCSI drives for $100 with shipping. I plan on using Ubuntu Server to make a FP server with one drive as the OS and the other 5 as a Raid array. These will be for Drive images using Arconis or Clonezilla. To share out more I am looking at a small NAS with 2 1TB drives with Disk Mirroring. It will be cheaper. I will be only running the server on one power supply as it will be running very light and the NAS will have the heavier load. Later My webpages will go on the server.

Look on sites like Kijiji or Ebay for really good deals. DellFS also sometimes has good deals on servers. Look around a bit.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

beorning said:


> So the question is should I spend $20 on a cheap PCI card or use software RAID instead? I'll be taking a Linux server class that will cover RAID configuration next semester so I'm not too worried about it being difficult to configure. Any thoughts?


You didn't say if you want RAID to stripe for performance or for redundancy for security. If you want to do striping then I would use a PCI card, but I would think that Linux software RAID will be satisfactory for redundancy.


----------



## OntarioMan (Feb 11, 2007)

My preference would be hardware based RAID - in my experience, its a simpler solution. With that said - in a Linux server class, they'll obviously teach you what RAID is, but I doubt they'll be teaching hardware based RAID, since it has very little to do with the operating system and requires almost no OS configuration. Software based RAID does require OS configuration - so I'd assume this is what they'll be teaching you.

I picked up a few LSI Logic 4-channel MegaRaid cards off of Ebay for very low money - and they work well with Ubuntu.

I think anytime you build any type of server, do your research and be sure the hardware you use is stable, well tested and well supported. If you're not interested in building a "latest 'n' greatest" or "cutting edge" type server, there is a ton of used but solid hardware out there for very low money - even free.


----------



## Gary in ohio (May 11, 2002)

For the $20 you can go wrong, Software raid is ok, but it eats CPU time and needs to be managed more. A card can do the work and offload the CPU.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

OntarioMan said:


> Software based RAID does require OS configuration - so I'd assume this is what they'll be teaching you.


Yes, and also drive preparation. The first time I tried Linux software RAID (redundancy) I did a dry run, where I duplicated the drive, shut down, then tried to boot with the redundant drive. It wouldn't boot. I booted with the other drive, but couldn't mount the duplicated drive.

I went to a Linux forum and asked some self-professed wizards why that was happening. It went something like this.

me: I can't boot with the redundant drive.
idiot: Oh, it's not supposed to boot.
me: Well, I can't mount it either.
idiot: Oh, it's not supposed to be mountable.
me: Then what good is it?
idiot: It has all your data.
me: What am I supposed to do with the data if I can't use it?
idiot: What do you want to do with it?
me: If all the data is on the drive, but I can't run the drive or see the data, I don't see what the point of having it is.
idiot: Because the data is there for you any time you need it.

:stars:

After doing more research, I found that the drive IS supposed to be bootable. If the redundant drive is prepared properly then both drives will be bootable in a hard drive disaster. It's a pitfall that Linux raid will allow drive duplication on a drive that hasn't been properly prepared as a bootable RAID volume. A server admin could get a false sense of security from a successful drive duplication. It will even report that the redundant volume is working just fine while the server is alive & breathing, still without proper drive preparation.

The moral is; trust nothing and no one. Do a dry run regardless of what you think you have.

By the way, I finally went to hardware RAID for all of my RAID needs. Even though Linux software RAID is entirely satisfactory for drive redundancy, hardware RAID is inexpensive, has better performance, and a whole lot easier to configure & maintain.


----------



## beorning (Apr 14, 2006)

Thanks for all the input. =]

I'm looking to mirror drives. The two big reasons for setting up the file server are consolidation of files from four different pc's and utilizing less power. Right now, I have my gaming rig set up as the print server and it's on all the time. I'd like to reduce the wear and tear on my more costly components and drop to a lower powered psu for constant use. My budget is $200, and doesn't include two 500 gig HDD's that I already have. I'm looking at a Shuttle barebones box with a celeron processor, a gig of ram and a 100w power supply from new egg for the build. That puts me at around $150. The big decision now is whether to buy a raid card or throw the extra money at a better processor. I have a few older boxes kicking around that I could use instead, but they have 300w power supplies and their reliability may be in question, given their age.

We've got around 100GB of data that needs to be consolidated right now. I imagine I'll be upgrading to two terabyte drives in a couple of years. 

Given that I will likely be able to afford a processor upgrade next year, and I probably won't be up to configuring software RAID until well into next semester, maybe a $20 card is the way to go. I can always backtrack and use software instead if the card doesn't work out...

Any thoughts on my hardware selection, other than the RAID card?

 Shuttle Box

CPU

Memory

Hard drives I'll be using

and this is the RAID card I'm looking at...


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

i'm not totally sure, but i think a 300 watt power supply only draws 300 watts when it needs to. they may not be the power hogs you think they will be in a system that is not loaded to the hilt.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

beorning said:


> The big decision now is whether to buy a raid card or throw the extra money at a better processor.


RAID capable mainboards don't command the premium that they used to. I suspect you can find a RAID capable mainboard for the same price as a mainboard without RAID if you look around.


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

all of the asus boards i bought for my home systems in the past 4 years or so came with RAID capability. they were the P4PE, P4P800-E Deluxe and the P4C800-E Deluxe. they can't be that expensive now as it has been at least 3 or 4 years since i built one.


----------



## OntarioMan (Feb 11, 2007)

Hardware based print servers (external box) are dirt cheap - I wouldn't even bother with a Linux box as a print server. 

"File server" is a very generic term - is it a straight/basic file server? Will you be streaming video? What exactly do you expect this "server" to do?

Most basic file servers are not cpu bottlenecked regardless of what modern cpu you use - and the amount of memory may make almost no difference either. Having 2gb of memory and a dual-core cpu in a server is useless if 256mb in a P4 1.8ghz will never even reach capacity.

One of the more interesting aspects of Linux as a "server" is how much you can actually do with so little. 

Meloc is correct - a 300w power supply can "supply 300w", but is not drawing 300w constantly. At "idle" it may draw only 75w or 100w - once the disk(s) kick in, maybe 130w - add a bunch of cooling fans and the demand increases and it draws more power, etc. etc. Get yourself a "kill-a-watt" meter and you can actually watch what your systems use and when. Power supplies are not created equal - "cheapy" power supplies are often energy hogs - my IBM thinkcentre desktop uses about half the power that my previous system used - and my IBM is newer, faster and has more drives.





beorning said:


> Thanks for all the input. =]
> 
> I'm looking to mirror drives. The two big reasons for setting up the file server are consolidation of files from four different pc's and utilizing less power. Right now, I have my gaming rig set up as the print server and it's on all the time. I'd like to reduce the wear and tear on my more costly components and drop to a lower powered psu for constant use. My budget is $200, and doesn't include two 500 gig HDD's that I already have. I'm looking at a Shuttle barebones box with a celeron processor, a gig of ram and a 100w power supply from new egg for the build. That puts me at around $150. The big decision now is whether to buy a raid card or throw the extra money at a better processor. I have a few older boxes kicking around that I could use instead, but they have 300w power supplies and their reliability may be in question, given their age.
> 
> ...


----------



## beorning (Apr 14, 2006)

OntarioMan said:


> "File server" is a very generic term - is it a straight/basic file server? Will you be streaming video? What exactly do you expect this "server" to do?


 I'm wanting to share music, photo and document files between 2 linux clients and 2 windows clients. Right now, we have a big mess with files spread amongst the four pc's and I'd like to consolidate everything and still have access for everyone on the network. No video streaming.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

beorning said:


> I'm wanting to share music, photo and document files between 2 linux clients and 2 windows clients. Right now, we have a big mess with files spread amongst the four pc's and I'd like to consolidate everything and still have access for everyone on the network. No video streaming.


If that's all you're doing why not just do it with peer networking on a Windows machine? You already have the machine and it's super simple to setup.

But regardless of which operating system you do it on, why do you need RAID mirroring for that? Just back them up on CD and run it on a single drive.


----------



## Gary in ohio (May 11, 2002)

MELOC said:


> i'm not totally sure, but i think a 300 watt power supply only draws 300 watts when it needs to.


A 300watt power supply is capable of providing 300watts of power. It will use 30-50% more power due to inefficiencies. It will however not draw full power unless its load needs that much.


----------



## beorning (Apr 14, 2006)

can I set up peer networking on a vista box between vista, xp and ubuntu? 

The main reason I'm interested in RAID is that I want a more or less automatic backup solution. I could back up to cd, but I'll end up not doing it on any kind of regular basis. In fact, given my track record, I'll stop doing backups 3-4 months before a drive dies and I'll lose a bunch of data. =] 

I also want to have things set up as simply as possible for my wife and 9 year old daughter. Getting either of them to do anything new with their computers is like pulling teeth, and is guaranteed to fail if it isn't incredibly basic and easy. My wife has close to $500 worth of downloaded music on her aging laptop, and between that and her extensive recipe collection, I'll never hear the end of it if her aging laptop hard drive fails and there isn't any backup. 

All the pc's are laptops, except my gaming rig. I don't know how much power it pulls exactly, but with a 1000watt PSU, a high end graphics card, aftermarket cpu cooling and four case fans, I'm guessing it isn't trivial. It's also pretty noisy. It would be nice to turn it off when I'm not using it to game.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

beorning said:


> can I set up peer networking on a vista box between vista, xp and ubuntu?


Sure. If you carry NetBIOS over TCP/IP the network doesn't really care. There used to be an issue while file sharing to Macs with FAT configured hard drives, but that's pretty much a thing of the past with NTSC.



beorning said:


> The main reason I'm interested in RAID is that I want a more or less automatic backup solution.


Okay, it'll sure accomplish that, as long as you're okay with buying a second hard drive.


----------



## Labrat407 (Aug 24, 2007)

beorning said:


> can I set up peer networking on a vista box between vista, xp and ubuntu?
> 
> The main reason I'm interested in RAID is that I want a more or less automatic backup solution. I could back up to cd, but I'll end up not doing it on any kind of regular basis. In fact, given my track record, I'll stop doing backups 3-4 months before a drive dies and I'll lose a bunch of data. =]
> 
> ...


Since You are looking mostly for a raid solution for simple backup, You might look at something like this NAS.This might give you room for 2 TB disks in your budget.
Then take your older system and run a linux server (Ubuntu should work) and configure a software backup routine for the computers on the network. Acronis is one solution if yow use a windows box or a Linux solution, including the one included with Ubuntu. Any old machine should handle the load.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Labrat407 said:


> Since You are looking mostly for a raid solution for simple backup, You might look at something like this NAS.This might give you room for 2 TB disks in your budget.


His budget was only $200 total, and he's going to be cutting it close as it is. There should be plenty of room for two hard drives in his case, so adding another $130 + shipping is out of the question.


----------



## beorning (Apr 14, 2006)

Sorry if I wasn't more clear about the drives. I already have them, I just need a case, etc. to go along with them. 

I actually looked at the NAS unit mentioned, but I know little to nothing about NAS. Would it do what I'm wanting to or just function as a back up device? 

My main goals here are to get all of our files consolidated, organized and accessible to everyone on the network, to have easy, automatic backup of those files, and to have something besides my gaming box or one of our laptops to function as a print server.


----------



## Labrat407 (Aug 24, 2007)

Are you printing that much that you need a print server? It is a light weight service for most general uses, Our network for 1500 heavy users had 2 just to distribute the load, but they were old lightly used servers.

If you have the HDD's then the NAS and a inexpensive Print server should fit the bill. Use the drives mirrored and it should be shared on the network. You will have to set up your local settings to point to the shared drives to make sure things are stored there. You can set up a backup to run every night or once a week to back up any other information that is on the local workstations.


----------



## beorning (Apr 14, 2006)

We probably print 4-5 documents daily. enough that no one wants to have to plug their laptop into the printer in order to print something out. I'm not sure if "print server" is the terminology I'm looking for based on what I want to do. I want printer access for the network without having to leave one of our current pc's plugged into the printer and running and without having to run over to the printer and plug in every time we need to print a document. 

I'm thinking that given the choice between having a NAS unit and a hardware print server or just having one box that serves as both and also has the versatility of being able to be used as a workstation in the future, The NAS combo doesn't really come out on top...


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

beorning said:


> I'm not sure if "print server" is the terminology I'm looking for based on what I want to do. I want printer access for the network without having to leave one of our current pc's plugged into the printer and running and without having to run over to the printer and plug in every time we need to print a document.


Again, Windows networking is a great way to share a printer on a network. After the network is setup you just right-click on the printer you want to share and select sharing. You can share it without restrictions, or even password protect the use of the device.


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

can a printer be shared by hooking the printer up to a router? some routers allow for USB usage.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MELOC said:


> can a printer be shared by hooking the printer up to a router? some routers allow for USB usage.


All you need is a hub, but most contemporary routers have a 4-port hub built in. You can share any network resources through a multi-port router, including printers.


----------



## OntarioMan (Feb 11, 2007)

My opinion :

- forget the tiny little cube case, get yourself a standard tower case
- any motherboard will do, you don't need much power or much memory ; a P4 1.8 with 256mb will be enough
- if you're gonna take a "Linux Server" class, you may as well have your own Linux server running
- if you're printer is USB or parallel (and not network ready), and the printer will be in the same room as the Linux server : sure, use the Linux box as a print server
- consumer grade NAS boxs - cute, fun, but you can build your own file server with a Linux box for much less money using very standard parts, you could even run something like "Free NAS" on the Linux box if you like - or run Samba. 

If you want to spend some money :

- get a quality power supply for your server, this doesn't have to be huge either, 250w or 300w is more than enough
- get a good battery backup, one which will communicate with your Linux server ; it doesn't have to be huge
- get yourself a good Ubuntu Linux book - something you can read while not sitting at the computer

Have fun!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

OntarioMan said:


> My opinion :
> 
> - forget the tiny little cube case, get yourself a standard tower case
> - any motherboard will do, you don't need much power or much memory ; a P4 1.8 with 256mb will be enough
> ...


I'll go along with everything above except FreeNAS. If he's taking a Linux Server class I suspect that it will be geared more towards Redhat, so he's probably better off with Fedora. That way he'll get used to using "yum" for his installs & updates, plus he'll be learning his way around the commercial standard for server operating system (Fedora uses the same file system structure as Enterprise).


----------



## beorning (Apr 14, 2006)

I hadn't considered what flavor of linux we'll be using in class and had initially planned on using ubuntu server because it's what I'm used to. It makes a ton of sense to have something running at home that parallels what I'm learning in school, though.

After much reading about the shuttle boxes, I'm inclined to agree on that point as well. A little more digging at newegg turned up a comparable tower build for around the same price.

The printer is a cheap HP deskjet. No network capability. I'm going to switch to a laserjet when it dies because it's alot cheaper per page, but I don't anticipate the old printer giving up the ghost anytime soon. It's shared currently via windows networking, but is the main reason my gaming rig never gets shut down. 

Thanks everyone for all the advice.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

beorning said:


> I hadn't considered what flavor of linux we'll be using in class and had initially planned on using ubuntu server because it's what I'm used to. It makes a ton of sense to have something running at home that parallels what I'm learning in school, though.


Honestly, I would be surprised if it weren't a Redhat product.



beorning said:


> The printer is a cheap HP deskjet. No network capability.


Doesn't matter with Windows networking. You can share any printer in your system over the network. The only real pitfall is that the Windows machine with the shared printer will, of course, need to be powered up to share it. 

The shared printer can have any kind of interface; parallel, serial, USB, you name it.


----------



## beorning (Apr 14, 2006)

Yep, It's Red Hat. I just pulled my book list for next semester...

So, Fedora it is.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

beorning said:


> Yep, It's Red Hat. I just pulled my book list for next semester...
> 
> So, Fedora it is.


Fedora will have all the same directory structures and applications as Redhat Enterprise. The difference is in the way you get security updates and the amount of support you get. With Enterprise it's 100% live supported, and updated with priority service. With Fedora it's forum supported, and updated with volunteer mirrors. I've been very happy with Fedora. The trade-off is that Enterprise costs thousands, while Fedora is free.

If you become a Redhat Linux jock, a lot of people will be looking for you. Quite frankly, while I've been suggesting using Windows networking for a home setting, if it's a really an important server job you should never trust it to Windows. The required Windows graphical interface is too bloated, creating a dimension if instability that's unacceptable for a commercial server.

Likewise, never trust a commercial Linux server with a bloated graphical environment like Gnome or KDE. Operate it by command prompt. You can install a lite graphical interface like webmin, and you might even consider cPanel if you administrate a lot of domains, but your primary environment should be the command prompt.


----------



## beorning (Apr 14, 2006)

Good advice. I'm a first semester network security student, and while my command prompt experience has been limited up to starting school, everything I'm doing now focuses on it. My biggest issue at the moment is not mixing up cisco, windows and linux commands. It's a bit like learning french, spanish and italian all at one time. =]


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

beorning said:


> Good advice. I'm a first semester network security student, and while my command prompt experience has been limited up to starting school, everything I'm doing now focuses on it. My biggest issue at the moment is not mixing up cisco, windows and linux commands. It's a bit like learning french, spanish and italian all at one time. =]


Unfortunately the only way to get this stuff is total immersion. You just have to live, breathe, and eat Linux until you're comfortable with it. One thing to remember is that Google is your friend. You can Google for just about any Linux command or issue and find valuable help.


----------

