| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guneyd
Joined: 11 Mar 2011
Posts: 26
|
 Posted: Apr 28, 2011 7:30 pm Post subject: SATA vs SD |
 |
|
Hi,
So far I've always made use of SATA drives when buying my servers. I've always been in need of more space and I figured, because it is cheaper, why not go with it. After doing some reading on the internet ever since and with my current aspirations of starting a good filesharing service, I'm wondering though whether the difference in the two is really noticable?
My current setup for the frontend exists of:
SATA drives (no raid)
8 GB of 16 GB RAM (I make use of cloudlinux, so I can always assign more RAM if needed)
Litespeed
And I'm now about to buy a separate server for the fileserver.
I was thinking of going for a lot of space, considering SD drives sure are more expensive and I'd need 6 SD servers for what I could get with 1 SATA server. What would those of you with the experience recommend?
SATA drives for both servers? SD for frontend and SATA for fileserver?
I appreciate your help! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
chrda
Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Posts: 260
|
| Posted: Apr 28, 2011 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
SSD isnt cost effective when it come to fileservers..
Best use for SSD is Databaseserver right now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guneyd
Joined: 11 Mar 2011
Posts: 26
|
| Posted: Apr 28, 2011 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chrda wrote: | SSD isnt cost effective when it come to fileservers..
Best use for SSD is Databaseserver right now. |
Thank you for the reply. Would using a SSD drive make a noticable difference as to using a SATA drive for the frontend server (database server) as far as speed is concerned? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chrda
Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Posts: 260
|
| Posted: Apr 28, 2011 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you got a big database, SSD and alot of memory is recommended.
Raid1xSSD is even better, incase one disk dies.
Redundancy, speed and backup makes a good database server
When it comes to speed, amount of memory is a important key.
One of my DB servers has 48Gb ram |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PilgrimX182
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 2106
Location: UFO Lab
|
| Posted: Apr 29, 2011 6:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Use SATA only for fileservers. SSD drives are too small for filesharing.
For MAIN server better use SCSI or 10k rpm SATA drives for best DB perfomance. I don't trust DB on SSD since DB have much writes and SSD don't like this and can go down. But RAID1xSSD is really good config 
16GB RAM for fileservers is OK. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
genaginger
Joined: 01 Oct 2010
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Apr 29, 2011 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
hello pilgrimx
i recently migreated to a cloud and i am getting error
/usr/bin/perl: symbol lookup error: Modules/WSD/Filter50864.so: undefined symbol: Perl_Tstack_sp_ptr,
can you plz help me it is realy urgent server has lots of traffic on it
i also send you an email |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
maestrohost
Joined: 03 May 2011
Posts: 7
Location: Indonesia Singapore USA
|
| Posted: May 03, 2011 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| PilgrimX182 wrote: | Use SATA only for fileservers. SSD drives are too small for filesharing.
For MAIN server better use SCSI or 10k rpm SATA drives for best DB perfomance. I don't trust DB on SSD since DB have much writes and SSD don't like this and can go down. But RAID1xSSD is really good config
16GB RAM for fileservers is OK. |
admin I would like ask you, let say one dedicated server is big huge fileserve with 16GB ram and hard drive sata with 5x2TB
this is will be one file server or will be separate by vps virtualization? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
komi
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 159
|
| Posted: May 03, 2011 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| maestrohost wrote: | | PilgrimX182 wrote: | Use SATA only for fileservers. SSD drives are too small for filesharing.
For MAIN server better use SCSI or 10k rpm SATA drives for best DB perfomance. I don't trust DB on SSD since DB have much writes and SSD don't like this and can go down. But RAID1xSSD is really good config
16GB RAM for fileservers is OK. |
admin I would like ask you, let say one dedicated server is big huge fileserve with 16GB ram and hard drive sata with 5x2TB
this is will be one file server or will be separate by vps virtualization? |
You do not want to use VPS virtualization for such situations, or any situation for that matter. If it is for yourself it would be a pure waste of the hardware. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
maestrohost
Joined: 03 May 2011
Posts: 7
Location: Indonesia Singapore USA
|
| Posted: May 03, 2011 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| komi wrote: | | maestrohost wrote: | | PilgrimX182 wrote: | Use SATA only for fileservers. SSD drives are too small for filesharing.
For MAIN server better use SCSI or 10k rpm SATA drives for best DB perfomance. I don't trust DB on SSD since DB have much writes and SSD don't like this and can go down. But RAID1xSSD is really good config
16GB RAM for fileservers is OK. |
admin I would like ask you, let say one dedicated server is big huge fileserve with 16GB ram and hard drive sata with 5x2TB
this is will be one file server or will be separate by vps virtualization? |
You do not want to use VPS virtualization for such situations, or any situation for that matter. If it is for yourself it would be a pure waste of the hardware. |
so do you think all in one fileserver mate? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
komi
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 159
|
| Posted: May 03, 2011 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| maestrohost wrote: | | komi wrote: | | maestrohost wrote: | | PilgrimX182 wrote: | Use SATA only for fileservers. SSD drives are too small for filesharing.
For MAIN server better use SCSI or 10k rpm SATA drives for best DB perfomance. I don't trust DB on SSD since DB have much writes and SSD don't like this and can go down. But RAID1xSSD is really good config
16GB RAM for fileservers is OK. |
admin I would like ask you, let say one dedicated server is big huge fileserve with 16GB ram and hard drive sata with 5x2TB
this is will be one file server or will be separate by vps virtualization? |
You do not want to use VPS virtualization for such situations, or any situation for that matter. If it is for yourself it would be a pure waste of the hardware. |
so do you think all in one fileserver mate? |
Of course. Why do you think about virtualization in the first place? o_O |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
michalss
Joined: 08 Feb 2010
Posts: 41
|
| Posted: May 03, 2011 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| PilgrimX182 wrote: | Use SATA only for fileservers. SSD drives are too small for filesharing.
For MAIN server better use SCSI or 10k rpm SATA drives for best DB perfomance. I don't trust DB on SSD since DB have much writes and SSD don't like this and can go down. But RAID1xSSD is really good config
16GB RAM for fileservers is OK. |
agree completely |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chrda
Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Posts: 260
|
| Posted: May 03, 2011 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
SSD has come far when it comes to quality and write cycles.
The right drives and enough memory is the key.
Putting most of it in memory takes a less toll on the drives.
A database server without raid1,raid10 is not an option |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guneyd
Joined: 11 Mar 2011
Posts: 26
|
| Posted: May 07, 2011 2:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you for all of the replies!
I'll do away my old servers and I'll go with the 100TB server from Leaseweb:
16 GB
4 x 1TB RAID5 (only option really  )
1 GB uplink
As for the main server.. I'm still undecided what to go with. I was going to use cloudlinux and set a standard amount of RAM for my frontend... but now I'm having second thoughts. The server is on a 100mbps connection and there will be a lot of other sites hosted as well  .
Also, I've read in some of the older topics, that you can have a seperate server for the frontend (site) and for the database files?
Is that correct? And if so, how can you do that?
I'm also looking now at Rackspace for Cloud Servers. I know it is more expensive storage/bandwidth/ram wise, but it also seems to be more secure and faster than a normal dedicated server.
The thing is, I'm not entirely certain what kind of server (file/main) uses what kind of resources.
Isn't it the fileservers that should be the best as far as optimization and/or specs go? Or should the mainserver have a lot of of RAM available as well? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nyan
Joined: 28 Oct 2010
Posts: 121
|
| Posted: May 08, 2011 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Guneyd wrote: | Thank you for all of the replies!
I'll do away my old servers and I'll go with the 100TB server from Leaseweb:
16 GB
4 x 1TB RAID5 (only option really )
1 GB uplink
As for the main server.. I'm still undecided what to go with. I was going to use cloudlinux and set a standard amount of RAM for my frontend... but now I'm having second thoughts. The server is on a 100mbps connection and there will be a lot of other sites hosted as well .
Also, I've read in some of the older topics, that you can have a seperate server for the frontend (site) and for the database files?
Is that correct? And if so, how can you do that?
I'm also looking now at Rackspace for Cloud Servers. I know it is more expensive storage/bandwidth/ram wise, but it also seems to be more secure and faster than a normal dedicated server.
The thing is, I'm not entirely certain what kind of server (file/main) uses what kind of resources.
Isn't it the fileservers that should be the best as far as optimization and/or specs go? Or should the mainserver have a lot of of RAM available as well? |
The 100 tb server is a good fileserver. Fileservers need ram and disc space, this server can easily serve 1000+ simulatinous downloaders with nginx. It has a nice price and leaseweb has a good network too.
For the main server, don't go for cloud stuff or whatever, but simply get a dualcore from leaseweb. for 50 e (ex tax) you can get the Intel G6950/4GB/2x250GB (DC38) which can probably serve up to 50000 or more downloaders per day. Or get any similar dual-core server with at least software raid 1 and 1 gb+ of ram
If you think about getting a seperate database server, don't do it right away since it costs money. (They need a private lan too). From my experience a single I7 can run a 100,000 visitors a day wordpress blog and xfs is a lot lighter than wordpress. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
michalss
Joined: 08 Feb 2010
Posts: 41
|
| Posted: May 09, 2011 5:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nyan wrote: | | Guneyd wrote: | Thank you for all of the replies!
I'll do away my old servers and I'll go with the 100TB server from Leaseweb:
16 GB
4 x 1TB RAID5 (only option really )
1 GB uplink
As for the main server.. I'm still undecided what to go with. I was going to use cloudlinux and set a standard amount of RAM for my frontend... but now I'm having second thoughts. The server is on a 100mbps connection and there will be a lot of other sites hosted as well .
Also, I've read in some of the older topics, that you can have a seperate server for the frontend (site) and for the database files?
Is that correct? And if so, how can you do that?
I'm also looking now at Rackspace for Cloud Servers. I know it is more expensive storage/bandwidth/ram wise, but it also seems to be more secure and faster than a normal dedicated server.
The thing is, I'm not entirely certain what kind of server (file/main) uses what kind of resources.
Isn't it the fileservers that should be the best as far as optimization and/or specs go? Or should the mainserver have a lot of of RAM available as well? |
The 100 tb server is a good fileserver. Fileservers need ram and disc space, this server can easily serve 1000+ simulatinous downloaders with nginx. It has a nice price and leaseweb has a good network too.
For the main server, don't go for cloud stuff or whatever, but simply get a dualcore from leaseweb. for 50 e (ex tax) you can get the Intel G6950/4GB/2x250GB (DC38) which can probably serve up to 50000 or more downloaders per day. Or get any similar dual-core server with at least software raid 1 and 1 gb+ of ram
If you think about getting a seperate database server, don't do it right away since it costs money. (They need a private lan too). From my experience a single I7 can run a 100,000 visitors a day wordpress blog and xfs is a lot lighter than wordpress. |
Dont recommand you to get only 1 file server, take 2 of them but not just 100TB coz it is expensive. Take smaller server for half money and take 2 of them to split your traffic and speed. Trust me it will be much much better. At least 16 GB of ram should do it. Not even nginx needed in this case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Register
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
