Hardware RAID Enclosures

[Piyono]

I'm now running a commercial recording studio and I've been looking into incorporating a RAID into my DAW. I'm leaning towards an external 4-bay enclosure for running RAID-5 with a hot spare; I like the idea of being able to toss the array into a safe at the end of a workday, or to be able to move it from computer to computer without hassle.

I'm not looking to break any speed records; A single 7200 RPM drive is perfectly adequate for my needs. I just want redundancy for peace of mind during a session. At the same time I don't want to buy an overpriced piece of junk. My gear has to be reliable.

I'm finding the research process frustrating because most manufacturers don't distinguish between their product lines, some of which are true, fully-integrated hardware RAID and some of which are port multipliers. Those that do distinguish generally don't mention which RAID chips they use.

I don't know a lot about this market segment and I'm unfamiliar with controller manufacturers and their offerings. I've read about Oxford's 936 chip series, which offers an ARM7 controller but I can't find any useful information about it in terms of reliability, performance and so on. None talk about rebuild speed.

I suspect that there are good products out there that don't cost an arm and a leg. I just need help weeding them out of the chaff.

Anyone?

 

[ddrueding]

I'm afraid I don't have much experience with that stuff. Even if a single drive is enough, I'd recommend RAID-1 or -10 for a DAW, as it is considerably less jittery while streaming writes. When I was at Dolby Labs all the systems had a single HDD or RAID-1.

Even if all you can source there is a port multiplier, you could do software RAID if you had to.

 

[Piyono]

The machines at Dolby Labs, were they DAWs? What kind of track counts were they subjected to? Were they using hardware RAID? FakeRAID? Software RAID?

What do you mean by "jittery", and how is RAID-1 less "jittery" than a single drive? It's just mirroring, after all.

 

[Piyono]

Been doing more reading and I'm discovering a whole subset of problems relating to drive/controller compatibility. Some reports say that certain drives don't work with certain controllers. It's a whole can of worms that I didn't want to get into, but there it is.

Also, what of RAID-specific drives like WD's RE-3 and RE-4? Would standard drives be just as good in my situation or do the RAID-specific features (TLER tweaks, etc.) show significant benefits?

 

[ddrueding]

I was recently informed that the Samsung 1.5TB drives are not on the "known good" list for Areca, and service is suffering slightly because of it. Just something to keep in mind...

 

[Handruin]

1.) What is your plan to connect your ideal 4-bay RAID 5 array to your DAW? Will this be a NAS, or some type of eSATA, or fibre channel, or SAS?

2.) Would it be better to consider a RAID 6 solution since you're already planning RAID 5 with a hot spare? At least this way you get double the number of parity drives and you will have less of a chance of failure during an array rebuild in the case of a drive failure and replacement.

3.) Do you have a budget in mind for this entire array (enclosure + drives)?

4.) How much space do you actually need and how far would you like it to eventually expand to?

5.) How large is the safe that you'd like to store this array in?

 

[CougTek]

I have this in my price list. I've never tried it, but it looks ok. Synology also offers very good products, but they are a lot more expensive. Their small NAS boxes can maintain very good speed over network access. X-bit Labs have several reviews of their NAS boxes.

 

[Piyono]

Good question, Handy.
Answers:

1.) DAS. eSata, primarily, although FW400 and USB2 would be nice as secondary options.

2.) All I want, really, is to have my ass covered in case a drive decides to go south mid-session (which happened last week). I've never had bottleneck issues with a lone 7200RPM drive of any manufacture so RAID 1 on a good controller would be quite adequate for this task. RAID 5 is an extravagance that I'm considering only because I'm as much a power-hungry gear addict as the next audio/computer geek.

3.) Yes and no. I figured from the word 'go' that this is gonna run us a few hundred bucks. I start getting anxious when I see figures north of $400, but otherwise I have no planned budget. We're having a team meeting today. I'm gonna bring up RAID as a concern. We'll see.

4.) The DAW audio drive/array needs only enough capacity to hold active projects with some breathing room. 500GB should be quite sufficient. Backups are handled by floating hard drives and whatever other storage devices are handy on a given day.

5.) I use the term 'safe' loosely. We're putting up a walk-in, floor-to-ceiling, woven-steel-mesh cage to help gently discourage expensive items from sprouting legs. That said, I can easily envision acquiring a small fire safe for more delicate items. We'd get one big enough to contain what needed containing.

Piyono

 

[Piyono]

I have this in my price list.

It looks nice but it uses an external power supply (strike 1) with a DIN(ky) connector (strike 2). Double no-no in my book. Also, there is no mention of which RAID controller is used (strike 3a), and no performance data is provided (strike 3b). Furthermore, I've been up-close and personal with Mediasonic's drive enclosure products and, frankly, they're too darn flimsy for my taste (strike 3c— out!).

That said, I came across a box by Areca which has a positive overall rating on Newegg. Any opinions?

Piyono

 

[Piyono]

The Synology stuff looks nice but doesn't quite meet my needs.

 

[Piyono]

Specifically because a) they're really expensive and b) are geared towards file storage as opposed to workstation usage.

 

[blakerwry]

2.) All I want, really, is to have my ass covered in case a drive decides to go south mid-session (which happened last week). I've never had bottleneck issues with a lone 7200RPM drive of any manufacture so RAID 1 on a good controller would be quite adequate for this task. RAID 5 is an extravagance that I'm considering only because I'm as much a power-hungry gear addict as the next audio/computer geek.

If you want to continue recording in the event of a failure, I'd skip RAID 5 or 6, as their write performance is going to suffer greatly in the event of a failure. I'd probably also skip a hot spare as the rebuild may likely do the same.

RAID1 if performance or capacity are not factors or RAID 10 if one of them is.

Luckily, RAID 1 performance is pretty good on either FakeRAID (or hardware RAID) and should be fine over SATA using software RAID (I probably wouldn't do it over firewire/USB)

 

[LunarMist]

If I were using it for a business I'd buy a pre-configured system.

 

[Piyono]

If you want to continue recording in the event of a failure, I'd skip RAID 5 or 6, as their write performance is going to suffer greatly in the event of a failure. I'd probably also skip a hot spare as the rebuild may likely do the same.

RAID1 if performance or capacity are not factors or RAID 10 if one of them is.

Luckily, RAID 1 performance is pretty good on either FakeRAID (or hardware RAID) and should be fine over SATA using software RAID (I probably wouldn't do it over firewire/USB)

Good points, Blakey.

My eyes have had some time to shrink down to a size more in line with my budget, which is good, because my budget is much more comfortable with RAID 1 than RAID 5 at the moment.

 

[Handruin]

If you're going to stick with RAID 1, what about doing a bay inside the computer case where you can remove the drives easily? Preferably one of those hot swap units that do not stress the SATA connectors on the drives (I'll see if I can find links in a sec). That way you can put them in the safe at night and not worry about cabling for eSATA/FW/USB?

 

[Bozo]

If you're going to stick with RAID 1, what about doing a bay inside the computer case where you can remove the drives easily? Preferably one of those hot swap units that do not stress the SATA connectors on the drives (I'll see if I can find links in a sec). That way you can put them in the safe at night and not worry about cabling for eSATA/FW/USB?

This one holds 5 drives. It would be great for RAID 10.

 

[Handruin]

I just returned my second one of those Supermicro drive bays to amazon this past week (which is also cheaper and free shipping compared to Newegg). I had lots of issues with performance with that drive cage which I believe was the result of CRC errors in my drives when connecting them through that drive cage. I never figured out why it was causing me issues.

That drive cage doesn't have the special mounting mechanism to protect the SATA connector on the drive. If Piyono plans to remove the drives nightly, he would want the better case type to protect from breaking the SATA connector over time.

 

[Santilli]

I just returned one as well. I have two raid cards, and one PCIX slot. 7 doesn't seem to much like either card. One's an 8 port 9000 series, the other 4 port. With the current 9550 running the Raid 0 SSD's, the other port doesn't seem to like removeable drives, and, neither card seems
able to coexist with the primary card.

Odd.

Anyway, an old SATA 1 card with two SATA ports works great with the removeable drives, even if the USB ports aren't really all that good.

I just put the old SCSI box back in, without the card, and use it to fill the void. Made the overall unit much quieter...

 

[Bozo]

CRU Data Port has all kinds of enclosures.

 

[Bozo]

Here's CRU Data Port enclosures.

They have lots of goodies.

 

[Santilli]

My problem with this has been that the Supermicro SATA internal box requires 5 separate cables to five SATA ports.

Frankly, I'm getting a bit sick of SATA. Seems that some drives work with some enclosures, and some boxes work with certain drives, and not with certain raid cards.

In short, the problem I see is one getting a setup where you can plug in the external box to the computer. If each SATA drive requires it's own cable, then you need multiple external ports. Plus, everytime you unplug it, your Raid array may or may not work the next time you plug it in.

I use these:
http://www.granitedigital.com/satahot-swapinternalenclosure1.aspx

I'd go here:

http://www.granitedigital.com/sataproducts.aspx

Look around. It appears that for each drive in the external box, you need a separate
external cable connection.

Also, the cards they suggest WORK, at least with my system and 7, where a couple other PCI-X cards have compatibility problems with the existing raid card in place.

Also, the Hot Swap trays seem to only work with certain PCI-X cards, not others.

I don't really see why if you took the external box, hooked it up the same each day, and removed it the same, the array wouldn't stay in place. Problem is, what software are you using to setup the array, and, if you disconnect it will it still recognize the array when you reconnect it?

Also, I'm not real sure if windows software raid would work, and or do it fast enough for your purpose.

I suspect Granite Digital might be REAL good folks to ask these questions, since they have been in business forever, and, know storage.

There are certain things where SCSI was/is WAY better at then SATA.

 

[Handruin]

By nature of the standard, SATA stands for Serial Advanced Technology Attachment with emphasis on Serial. I much prefer it and it's big brother SAS to traditional SCSI. If there ever was a complicated bus which was a pain in the ass with finding the right type of cable, the right bus speed (wide, ultrawide, super ultra wide, mega ultra super wide), the right type of terminator, the location of the terminator, and even having to select the correct ID numbers of each drive...that was your beloved SCSI. No thanks, I'm done with dealing with its complexities.

Not having to deal with a parallel cable, SATA/SAS offers a nice win in simplifying the configuration, cable, and management. If you want to go beyond a single drive per cable, you can look into port multipliers for both SAS and SATA.

 

[sechs]

I'm not looking to break any speed records; A single 7200 RPM drive is perfectly adequate for my needs. I just want redundancy for peace of mind during a session.

I am looking at this and just wondering why on earth you might think that you might need a RAID 5 setup.

I'm with the RAID 1 crowd. One drive is fast enough, and two is redundant.

Handy's idea of hotswap is good. Get the two drives on sleds, and alternate taking one out at the end of the day.

 

[Santilli]

By nature of the standard, SATA stands for Serial Advanced Technology Attachment with emphasis on Serial. I much prefer it and it's big brother SAS to traditional SCSI. If there ever was a complicated bus which was a pain in the ass with finding the right type of cable, the right bus speed (wide, ultrawide, super ultra wide, mega ultra super wide), the right type of terminator, the location of the terminator, and even having to select the correct ID numbers of each drive...that was your beloved SCSI. No thanks, I'm done with dealing with its complexities.

Not having to deal with a parallel cable, SATA/SAS offers a nice win in simplifying the configuration, cable, and management. If you want to go beyond a single drive per cable, you can look into port multipliers for both SAS and SATA.

My point is that when you try and do enterprise stuff with SATA, it's just as hard, or worse then SCSI.

The 5 drive SCSI box came with an excellent, working backplane for 100 bucks. The SATA
doesn't even really have a working backplane, or it would have 1 SATA out for the 5 drives, yet it still costs more then the SCSI box did. Something is rotten in Denmark on that one. So you have to go to enterprise cost cards to get basic functionality in SATA?

The Supermicro box, Gem 318, required a SCSI cable with one connector at each end, included, and no termination, since the box has termination. Couldn't be simpler. Better then trying to figure out where to put 5 SATA cables...

Also, I have 3 SATA raid cards, a slow SATA card, and, I'm having more problems with them playing nice then I did 2003 and scsi PCI-X. For that matter, the SATA 1 two port card worked fine with 2003 and the SCSI Megaraid card in place.

Not to mention that the on board ports of the Gigabyte motherboard work with some SATA configurations, and not with others...

Reminds me WAY too much of IDE claiming to be much better, and, was in fact far worse.

I think Sechs has the right idea. Odd, but with my removeable drives, sometimes the computer won't boot unless the drives are pulled out, booted up, then inserted after boot.

Other times, it works fine, with the drives starting in the bays.

 

[Handruin]

I don't see how SATA is harder than SCSI and the fact that it's possible to do enterprise stuff says a lot more for SATA than you might think.

Logically I don't understand why you would want to connect a single SATA connection into an array backplane which houses 5 drives? Yes, it might be possible with a port multiplier, but why would you want to make your performance suffer? I think you're stuck on the mentality of a parallel bus and cabling.

If you moved up to SAS, you would be able to do more of what you want which is to use less cables with more drives. There are cables like a SAS SFF-8087 for example that would allow you to do this. You can also visualize SAS working with a multi-lane cable into a backplane for your hard drives.

 

[Bozo]

3Ware has RAID cards that have 4 into 1 cabling setups. They also have cards for PCI-X and PCI-E.

They have SAS cards too.

3Ware

 

[Santilli]

I'm just running out of ports. I have a rather expensive motherboard, and, it has one set of ports that are faster then the other. They are pretty much all full, at this point.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...yte-ga-ex58-ud5-x58-motherboard-review-2.html

Yes, it blindingly fast with the two X-25's in Raid 0.

Still, for my uses, I could do with more ports.

I guess I've hit the point where I have currently:

a 3 ware 8500 4 port PCI-X
and, a
3 Ware 9500S-8
Neither plays nice with the 9550S-4

I tried getting either to work with 7 and, found only the 9500-s supported, but, it still wouldn't see the removeable drives in the GD removeable drive bays, and, I decided it was more hassle then it was worth with the Supermicro SATA box.

It's also not all that cheap, when you consider the cost of the PCI-X raid cards.

PCI-E cards aren't cheap, and, a certain video card takes up two of the ports anyway, not leaving much room for expansion.

Another solution might be to go back to 2003 on the server. ALL the cards would then work, but, I'd be back to manual driver loading, and being 10 years behind the times.

 

[Handruin]

Why not look into a Dell Perc 6i for 8 SATA/SAS ports in an 8x PCIe card? I bought two of them for $150/each brand new giving me 16 SATA ports (or SAS if you prefer). I can't imagine for the price you probably paid on the 9500S-8 that you can even notice a huge performance difference.

 

[Santilli]

Thanks, but I'm kind of done with adding drives to the server, and, don't have room or need really in The Beast.

I think you are right that the Supermicro enclosure is best used for drives in a machine on a pretty much constant basis, and, I don't really need that.

I can use the two existing removeable storage bays for almost everything I do, and, if I need redundant backup, I can copy the contents of one drive to another in the machine, no problem. I could also probably setup a Raid 1 in software, if I had the need.

I'd rather stay with less power consumption, we dropped our PG&E bill about 5 bucks this month, just use the drive bays I have.

If I have the need for a redundant backup, the scsi box works, and I just add the one slot, one cable, and I'm back up and running.

The LSI 320 Megaraid DOES work with the the 9550S-4.