Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

Question

Need help with RAID controller selection

Feb 17, 2015 12:37AM PST

Current build specs:

AMD FX8370 CPU
ASUS Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 MOBO
32GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1866 RAM
2X240GB Mushkin SSD (RAID 1) OS
3X3TB Seagate 7200 RPM (RAID5) Data
Sapphire R9 290X 8GB GDDR5 Graphics Card
Corsair AX1200i PS
Cooler Master Cosmos II case

I do a lot of "big data" work, that is what this server is for. The crazy GC is because I want to power 4 monitors and keep the refresh rate high (I am staring at these screens 8-10 hours a day). I purchased the massive cosmos II case because I knew I would need to expand the storage on the data drive as the datasets grew larger over time, I am about a month away from needing to add more storage capacity to my data drive array. The limit of the MOBO is 6 total drives in RAID, meaning I have only 1 more slot open for expansion on the MOBO itself. This should buy me another 3-4 weeks at best.

My question to all you fine people, since I feel like I am chasing a purple squirrel, is what RAID controller to get for this server? Ideally, the controller would have at least 8 ports and support RAID5, that being said... All the ones I have found are PCI-e 1-lane interfaces to the MOBO, which would be fine if the GC I have didn't block off that interface. Do I have other options that aren't $700+?

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Answer
Too far out.
Feb 17, 2015 12:42AM PST
- Collapse -
Reply
Feb 17, 2015 12:51AM PST

This is a personal build, I work from home. I went with seagate because I had them in my stash of hardware already. I knew they weren't the best, it just made it easier and cheaper to get everything up and going quickly so I could start making money Happy

I have no problem upgrading to new HDD in the next 2 months (especially after seeing that failure rate!), that is when I break even on the investment of building this server Wink

- Collapse -
Did you notice the Seagate 3TB spike.
Feb 17, 2015 1:23AM PST

No sale here.

- Collapse -
I noticed
Feb 17, 2015 9:33AM PST

Yes, like I said... Already had a few in boxes at the house, that is why I used them.

- Collapse -
40% failure rate for 2014 is scary.
Feb 17, 2015 9:35AM PST

I can see why you want RAID5.

- Collapse -
Answer
parting thought.
Feb 17, 2015 12:44AM PST

When I look for big data rigs, I use Intel CPUs. The goal is stability so that's what our merry band of consultants learned over time. You learn to not sign up for stability on the other brand and don't make any promises.
Bob

- Collapse -
Reply
Feb 17, 2015 12:56AM PST

In 6-7 months, I will have enough stashed back to upgrade the components in this build to an Intel platform. The reason for AMD was because it was substantially cheaper to get started. It has been up and running for 3 months and I have no had any issues (Running RHL 6.6). Regardless of the platform (AMD/Intel), I still need a good raid controller in the near term...

- Collapse -
The thing is
Feb 17, 2015 1:24AM PST

You detailed out drives that were the highest failure rate, the less than stable core machine and then I don't see any backup system. For this I'd be looking at a Drobo with a pack of other than Seagate 3TB HDDs.
Bob

PS. Nod to Adaptec for controllers.

- Collapse -
CPU's and stability
Feb 17, 2015 1:52AM PST
" I use Intel CPUs. The goal is stability"

I would be interested in seeing information that AMD processors are less stable than Intel processors, when each are working at desired specifications.
- Collapse -
That's been kicked around for a long long time.
Feb 17, 2015 2:17AM PST

It's like a Ford Chevy debate and you'll find folk on both sides but over the years I've had issues with the AMD far more than the Intel along with findings from others in my circles. If a client wants stability we get the Intel.'

I wonder why they picked that HDD. It was the worst on the charts for reliability. Something's odd with this build.
Bob

- Collapse -
The 3TB Seagates were being dumped
Feb 17, 2015 3:40AM PST

at firesale prices, so maybe that's why. Seemingly the larger ones are as bad, or maybe not enough time to get a full reading on failure rates? I think the WD alternate brand, can't recall the name right now, are what used to be the Hitachi drives, but were bought out by WD.

- Collapse -
correction;
Feb 17, 2015 3:45AM PST

"Seemingly the larger ones are as bad..."

should be

Seemingly the larger ones are NOT as bad...

- Collapse -
I think any difference
Feb 17, 2015 3:44AM PST

in failure of CPU between AMD and Intel is probably more heat related than any other reason since the AMD tend to run hotter for same performance to the Intel chips. I like the cost saving of AMD, since the Intel can be 2-3 times more expensive comparatively.

- Collapse -
The OP is striving for ... something ...
Feb 17, 2015 4:21AM PST

I can't guess what the goal is since my wife's travel laptop is a cheap thing. An Asus x200ca to be exact which I popped a 240GB SSD (Crucial M500) in it and it boots in under 15 seconds. Resumes from hibernation in under 5 seconds so it's anyone's guess why they are RAIDing the boot drive.

I've seen folk climb onto limbs but don't want to tell them it's OK.
Bob

- Collapse -
I usually avoid such threads
Feb 17, 2015 12:11PM PST

all those "is this a great build" or "is this a great gaming computer" or "look at what I built" and similar.

- Collapse -
Reason for RAID1
Feb 18, 2015 7:40AM PST

Since this is my personal server that I use for work, I don't want to have a day of downtime while I reinstall and patch the OS. Not to mention the headache of having to reformat the data drive for the OS to recognize it, then restore that data from backup. A lot easier and cheaper to spend $150 on an extra SSD to avoid the headache.

- Collapse -
The thing is, RAID 1 is not that safe.
Feb 18, 2015 8:15AM PST

Any gaffe or infection is instantly duplicated to the RAID 1 copy. If you were cloning the drive from time to time then you might have a chance. But RAID 1 in your scenario has been the ruin of many.
Bob

- Collapse -
If that's true
Feb 18, 2015 8:46AM PST

then you'd use Linux. I ran it for 121 days non stop and that was including all updates. This is from day 101. The only updates in Linux that require a reboot is if you update the kernel and you have the choice to not do so, if you have no pressing need for the newer kernel.