Server OS

SeTeS

Senior member
Dec 11, 2000
329
0
0
I'm about to rebuild my aging fileserver and am trying to decide whether or not to take the dive into a linux based os. I'm sure that any decent distro would provide the features that I currently use under Win2k (file storage, dvarchive for networked replaytvs, remote access), but what I'm not sure of is how it would handle external storage...

My plans were to have 2 - 200g drives in RAID1 config internally. I plan on using several external usb drives for backups. My question is, can the external drives be formatted in such a way that they will be useable when connected to both the server OR a windows workstation? I think that linux can handle fat32 partitions w/ no prob (ntfs writes are problematic), but I worry about the fat32 partition size limitations.

Any one care to take a dump on this one?

 

wkinney

Senior member
Dec 10, 2004
268
0
0
Why would you need to connect the external drives to each computer? USB 2.0 is still slower than 100base-T, if you needed to use the drive just access it via the network.
 

SeTeS

Senior member
Dec 11, 2000
329
0
0
Well, for example, suppose I want carry one of the backup enclosures to a different place (outside my lan) to transfer files. More than likely, it would be connecting to a windows machine. I need that enclosure to be readable (and perhaps, writeable) by a range of OSs.

If I formatted the backup drives using a linux format (Riser, etc), definitely wouldn't be a plug-n-play affair.
 

TGS

Golden Member
May 3, 2005
1,849
0
0
If you just want to take the storage and transfer elsewhere..?

1) FTP
2) Upload
3) ...
4) Profit


Unless your upload speeds are horrendous, or the other machine has no network access sneakernet should be your last option.

Also windows shouldn't care about were the disk came from Win2K will write a disk signature on the drive(s) so they should come up in the correct configuration if you decide on the more manual process.
 

bersl2

Golden Member
Aug 2, 2004
1,617
0
0
Just one note: if you do run Samba, you don't (and you shouldn't) store the actual data in a FAT file system; Samba translates VFS operations locally to SMB operations to send over the network. You need to understand the difference between a physical file system and a network file system. As for transfers over the Internet, use SCP.
 

SeTeS

Senior member
Dec 11, 2000
329
0
0
My thought was to use something like nfs3 or the like for the local filesystem and use something generic (fat32) for the backups.

I suppose that I could just setup the server w/ linux and pull the backups over the lan to a usb drive on a windows wkstn. That would work, although it would likely be a bit on the slow side.

If I went w/ windows again on the server, I'd likely set up each usb drive w/ an autorun.inf to prompt for a scripted backup when the device is plugged in.
 

TGS

Golden Member
May 3, 2005
1,849
0
0
Is your hardware going to die? Why do you need backups on another machine? Couldn't you just tarball a system image to the backup device, and extract it if you have OS failures?
 

drag

Elite Member
Jul 4, 2002
8,708
0
0
Screw RAID 1.

Go with THREE drives and get RAID 5. Linux software RAID is very good.

The on-board 'RAID' controllers on 99% of motherboards are worthless. They are what is called 'BIOS'-raid and is the equivelent to Winmodems vs real modems.

Completely worthless and mostly unsupported under Linux. Linux software raid is better and faster.

Don't bother with external devices. They are expensive, and seems very fragile. I used to think that it was a good idea, but I don't think so anymore. I've been hearing horror stories about many usb enclosures having very crappy heat transfer support and burning out drives.

If you want to build a cheap server from the ground up get a nice little celeron box with a intel board with a SATA nic card with extra SATA controller for 3+ drives and a 10/100/1000Mb/s nic card. Or amd equivilent if you want.. there is no need to get anything very fast cpu-wise unless you want to use it for transcoding or something like that. Onboard video is supported and 'good enough' for server work.. anyways you'd ssh into it most of the time.

With network fs's like CFS (smb/SAMBA) the file system doesn't matter. Native ext3 for Linux can handle multi-gigabyte files with ease.

For more real backups just burn DVDs of your most important stuff.

Also get a UPS, only hook it up to your box.

Pick a Linux distro with good package management system so that updates and upgrades are a breeze.

So on and so forth. That's what I figure is nice for a file server in Linux.
 

TXJustin

Member
Jun 13, 2003
54
0
0
Originally posted by: wkinney
Why would you need to connect the external drives to each computer? USB 2.0 is still slower than 100base-T, if you needed to use the drive just access it via the network.

Eh? A hi-speed USB device would transfer at 480 Mbps
 

drag

Elite Member
Jul 4, 2002
8,708
0
0
Yep.. and even very fast drives won't be able to have sustained speeds much above 400Mb/s
 

wkinney

Senior member
Dec 10, 2004
268
0
0
Originally posted by: TXJustin
Originally posted by: wkinney
Why would you need to connect the external drives to each computer? USB 2.0 is still slower than 100base-T, if you needed to use the drive just access it via the network.

Eh? A hi-speed USB device would transfer at 480 Mbps

yeah sorry, 1000base-t/gigabit.

"it's capable of sustained transfer rates of up to 46.7 MBps (about 374 mbps)."
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,82005,00.asp

46.7 MBps is still less than 100base-t speeds. thats for a 5400rpm, however a 7200 wouldn't show that much more improvement.
 

bersl2

Golden Member
Aug 2, 2004
1,617
0
0
Originally posted by: SeTeS (empasis added)
My thought was to use something like nfs3 or the like for the local filesystem and use something generic (fat32) for the backups.

I suppose that I could just setup the server w/ linux and pull the backups over the lan to a usb drive on a windows wkstn. That would work, although it would likely be a bit on the slow side.

If I went w/ windows again on the server, I'd likely set up each usb drive w/ an autorun.inf to prompt for a scripted backup when the device is plugged in.

Error: NFS is not a physical file system; it is a network file system---in fact, what do you thing NFS stands for?

Again, it seems as though your terminology needs a little refinement.
 

SeTeS

Senior member
Dec 11, 2000
329
0
0
I hadn't considered software raid. I tend to try to use pci raid cards so in case of mobo failure i can at least move the card and drives to a different box for recovery.

I do have enuf 200g drives for raid 5; the upside would be that I would double (to 400g) my storage area. Question is, could I (or should I not) BOOT the system off of the array? Or should I have a different physical drive for the OS?

As far as distro's go, i haven't had much experience w/ a range of them... I was thinking Debian for the ease of package updates.


And re the nfs3 / ext3 flub... you're both right... I meant ext3, and yes, my termelancholy certainly could use some refineration. Tnx.
 

TGS

Golden Member
May 3, 2005
1,849
0
0
If you are concerned about fault tolerance, you will want to put the OS on the array. RAID 5 isn't bad for a file server. For storing files your write penaties will be almost negligible except for actually transferring files for storage. Even with software raid, RAID 5 for home use is perfectly fine.

If you want real fault tolerance run RAID 1 on the OS array, and RAID 5 on the data array. Both provide fault tolerance, but RAID 5 will give your data array more usable space to work with.

Software or hardware, either is better than going without a RAID level, excluding RAID 0.
 

nweaver

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2001
6,813
1
0
I think that for Linux S/W raid you can still move the drives, but you have to make sure your raidtab file is setup correctly. Then it will just read the superblock data and you can mount the partitions. I could be wrong, I have never tried this.
 

SeTeS

Senior member
Dec 11, 2000
329
0
0
I'm glad to have gotten a number of comments on the hardware/raid side of the question...

Also, re expansion... can a software raid 5 array under linux be expanded without rebuild, or am I asking too much?

Any comments on a distro? I shore ain't no linucks ofishanado, so prolly wunna thimare 'gooey' distros ud be a good idear.

tia
 

groovin

Senior member
Jul 24, 2001
857
0
0
i have mixed feelings about linux software RAID... ive had some big problems with it on our servers at work, but no problems with it on my home servers, and a few servers at work run perfectly on it. im a big fan of 3ware RAID cards, there are lots on ebay... but, if cost savings is one of your goals, then definitely consider software RAID.

as far as backups, well im not sure how well using fat32 on a USB drive will work... the latest linux kernels have ntfs write support (which in my limited use, has worked fine), but id do more research on that. as Draq said, DVDs might be better.

as for a distro... stay away from using a GUI... it just eats up resources and doesnt give much benefit. get a distro with a good package manager... gentoo and debian have great package managers so id look into those.

 

TGS

Golden Member
May 3, 2005
1,849
0
0
Originally posted by: SeTeS
I'm glad to have gotten a number of comments on the hardware/raid side of the question...

Also, re expansion... can a software raid 5 array under linux be expanded without rebuild, or am I asking too much?

Any comments on a distro? I shore ain't no linucks ofishanado, so prolly wunna thimare 'gooey' distros ud be a good idear.

tia

It looks like with raidtools and LVM you should be able to manipulate the volumes to how you see fit.

All distros are capable of gui based management. Though some opt to give you a default of commandline. You can also turn a "gui" environment into a command line box by editing the /etc/inittab. You could change the initdefault to a 3, when you get the box in order. Or change/keep it to a 5 for the graphic start. The init 3 is ideal for older systems, for resource management and overall performance tuning.

Off the top of my head, I've heard good things about Gentoo, Slackware, and Debian.

But....
 

drag

Elite Member
Jul 4, 2002
8,708
0
0
Originally posted by: SeTeS
I'm glad to have gotten a number of comments on the hardware/raid side of the question...

Also, re expansion... can a software raid 5 array under linux be expanded without rebuild, or am I asking too much?

I don't think so.. at least it wouldn't be convienent. I think I seen something mentioned from the kernel 'md' manager (software raid in linux = 'md' raid, more or less).

At least not with standard MD software RAID, I don't think. If you realy want to know you'd have to ask somebody with more authority.

What you can do, however, that is fairly easy is to setup a LVM enviroment.

LVM stands for 'logical volume management'. It consists of 3 parts..
1. Physical Volumes... these are the 'hard' devices. It can be a drive, or a partition or a software or hardware RAID array.
2. Volume group... a bunch of physical volumes that are pooled together to form one managable hunk of data. A sort of 'one big logical drive' sort of thing.
3. Logical volume.. this is a sort of logical partition on the volume group.

The nice thing about logical volumes over partitions, is that they can be resized and moved, and deleted without taking the system down. Some file systems like reiserfs this can be while they are being used, but others like ext3 need to be unmounted for certain operations.

It's handy enough that I like to use them even when I only have one drive.

For example on my file server I have 3 drives (one PATA onboard, two SATA on PCI-ide adapter) in a software RAID 5 array. Now the software RAID makes it seem one big device, of course, but I still use LVM because it makes my system much easier to manage.

If I wanted too I could of had all of them seperate without a RAID 5 array or anything like that and made them into one volume group and not had to sacrifice one full drive-size hunk of space for the RAID to use up, but I thought that the extra redundancy was worth it.

I am thinking that if you want to setup one RAID 5 array right now for the time being, and when you begin to run out of space you could go and add a entirely NEW larger RAID array. That way you could either add that second array to the Volume group and expand the logical volumes to take up the extra space, or you could setup a seperate new Volume group and migrate logical volumes from one array to the other as you need more space.

Combining LVM and software RAID is a realy very common setup for low-end linux servers and most Linux installers can easily handle assisting in setting this up for you.

If you want to get fancy you can check out EVMS. This is 'take it to the next level' linux stuff and stands for 'enterprise volume management system'.

It takes existing stuff like LVM and adds on new capabilities and management tools. You can do fancy stuff like do high aviability and load balancing file/database cluster servers using CLVM (cluster logical volume management) and other technologies.

This is for higher end stuff. For example with Redhat they have people increasing the performance of their network attatched storage systems and lowering costs by taking the NAS and connect it to various server 'front ends' using stuff like iSCSI and GFS (global file system) and managing it all using CLVM and EVMS type stuff. Basicly you use expensive high speed connections to connect to a bunch of servers that then spread the load for database stuff or file server stuff thru different connections in a cheaper ethernet backbone to load balance for clients.

EVMS is usually aviable if you want to play with it. For isntance I can install it thru apt-get on my debian box right now if I felt like it.

So there is a lot of room for you to play around with...

Also for a bonus Linux MD raid is very fast for being software raid. With a nice CPU you can easily outperform most hardware raid arrays. (of course hardwar raid arrays are still nice for their extra data-protection features, and hot plugability and such).

Although if you go the root with planning on expanding with more drives you'd probably want to get a system with PCIe connections as arrays as small as 4-5 drives can easily saturate a regular 32bit 66mhz PCI bus. PCIe (and multiple CPU cores) realy let the Linux LVM/software raid scale much better then it did previously.

Any comments on a distro? I shore ain't no linucks ofishanado, so prolly wunna thimare 'gooey' distros ud be a good idear.

tia

Well any distro should be able to do software raid and LVM easily enough.

I use Debian (be sure to install with the linux26 boot option so that you can get LVM2 support with device-mapper stuff), but you want nice guis and such.

Suse is a good choice. Yast is suppose to be a very handy configuration tool.

If you want Redhat stuff, which is most likely system you'd encounter in the real world, then licenses aren't tooo expensive. (plus you have the ability to get support up to a year with no extra charge), but I doubt you realy care about that. There are no-cost Redhat clones like CentOS that are popular. All the features and tools that Redhat provides, just minus the redhat trademarks and icons and such.

Ubuntu should be able to handle this no-sweat. It uses the Debian installer so it should be able to set it up.. it's a bit confusing at first using the installer to setup LVM on top of software raid, but its not going to take more then a little struggle.


Also if you want to move the array from one machine to another, it should work as long as you pretty much keep the same basic harddrive arrangement.
 

gwag

Senior member
Feb 25, 2004
608
0
0
Originally posted by: wkinney
Originally posted by: TXJustin
Originally posted by: wkinney
Why would you need to connect the external drives to each computer? USB 2.0 is still slower than 100base-T, if you needed to use the drive just access it via the network.

Eh? A hi-speed USB device would transfer at 480 Mbps

yeah sorry, 1000base-t/gigabit.

"it's capable of sustained transfer rates of up to 46.7 MBps (about 374 mbps)."
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,82005,00.asp

46.7 MBps is still less than 100base-t speeds. thats for a 5400rpm, however a 7200 wouldn't show that much more improvement.

You still dont get it. 46.7MBps is 4X faster than 100bt ethernet.
 

The Scientist

Member
Aug 18, 2005
81
0
0
Originally posted by: gwag
Originally posted by: wkinney
Originally posted by: TXJustin
Originally posted by: wkinney
Why would you need to connect the external drives to each computer? USB 2.0 is still slower than 100base-T, if you needed to use the drive just access it via the network.

Eh? A hi-speed USB device would transfer at 480 Mbps

yeah sorry, 1000base-t/gigabit.

"it's capable of sustained transfer rates of up to 46.7 MBps (about 374 mbps)."
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,82005,00.asp

46.7 MBps is still less than 100base-t speeds. thats for a 5400rpm, however a 7200 wouldn't show that much more improvement.

You still dont get it. 46.7MBps is 4X faster than 100bt ethernet.

"yeah sorry, 1000base-t/gigabit."

 

SeTeS

Senior member
Dec 11, 2000
329
0
0
Ok, so provided I go w/ a debian install... I've found instructions on doing a raid setup in which the boot partition sits on a raid-1 array across the drives and the data partition sits on a raid5 array across the same disks. I've successfully set one of these up in a VM just so I can play w/ it.

So, I've got a couple of choices to make.

Should I use LVM on top of all that? I don't think it would really allow me to later add a drive TO the ARRAY, but just perhaps add an auxilliary drive or array that would add size to the data partition.

On hand, I've got 4 200g drives. My initial plan was to put 3 of them into the box for around 400g of raid5 storage, using the additional 200g as a backup drive (ext usb). Would it be better to slap the extra in as a hot spare? From what I understand, this would be more of a high-availability solution. Or I should prepare for the inevitable need for more space and just put all 4 in the array for 600g of storage. With 200g seagates hovering around 60 bucks AR, i can afford to pick up another one for backups. I guess the core question here would be is my storage $$ better spent on availability (hot spare) or redundancy (usb backup). [or spend 60 (net) bucks and do both ].

btw, tnx to all for the help on this. I've been doing a lot of reading lately and am feeling more and more confident that debian will be a good choice. I've got years of windoze experience and have been hesitant to make the move to linux for my server mainly because w/ windows - I KNOW - how to handle any problems that arise... hopefully, those 'problems' won't even be an issue for linux.
 

groovin

Senior member
Jul 24, 2001
857
0
0
I KNOW - how to handle any problems that arise

well the great thing about linux is that when you dont know something, someone else probaly does and has posted about it. with MS products in my experience, it's been a mixed bag and lately MS kbase hasnt been very helpful to me... there are tons of helpful MS guys on the forums, but in my experience, the linux community has been more willing to help.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |