XFileSharing Pro - SATA vs SD

Message
Author
Guneyd
Posts: 67
Joined: Mar 11, 2011 4:30 pm

SATA vs SD

#1 Postby Guneyd » Apr 28, 2011 7:30 pm

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!

chrda
Posts: 296
Joined: Sep 14, 2009 7:16 pm

#2 Postby chrda » Apr 28, 2011 9:31 pm

SSD isnt cost effective when it come to fileservers..

Best use for SSD is Databaseserver right now.

Guneyd
Posts: 67
Joined: Mar 11, 2011 4:30 pm

#3 Postby Guneyd » Apr 28, 2011 9:34 pm

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?

chrda
Posts: 296
Joined: Sep 14, 2009 7:16 pm

#4 Postby chrda » Apr 28, 2011 9:39 pm

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

User avatar
PilgrimX182
Posts: 2182
Joined: Mar 22, 2006 1:39 pm

#5 Postby PilgrimX182 » Apr 29, 2011 6:34 am

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.

genaginger
Posts: 3
Joined: Oct 01, 2010 5:13 pm

#6 Postby genaginger » Apr 29, 2011 7:07 am

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

maestrohost
Posts: 7
Joined: May 03, 2011 9:59 am

#7 Postby maestrohost » May 03, 2011 10:28 am

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?

komi
Posts: 161
Joined: Nov 27, 2009 12:41 pm

#8 Postby komi » May 03, 2011 11:56 am

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.

maestrohost
Posts: 7
Joined: May 03, 2011 9:59 am

#9 Postby maestrohost » May 03, 2011 12:16 pm

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?

komi
Posts: 161
Joined: Nov 27, 2009 12:41 pm

#10 Postby komi » May 03, 2011 4:57 pm

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

michalss
Posts: 41
Joined: Feb 08, 2010 1:31 pm

#11 Postby michalss » May 03, 2011 5:16 pm

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

chrda
Posts: 296
Joined: Sep 14, 2009 7:16 pm

#12 Postby chrda » May 03, 2011 8:19 pm

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 :)

Guneyd
Posts: 67
Joined: Mar 11, 2011 4:30 pm

#13 Postby Guneyd » May 07, 2011 2:02 pm

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 :P)
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?

nyan
Posts: 163
Joined: Oct 28, 2010 8:01 pm

#14 Postby nyan » May 08, 2011 9:06 pm

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 :P)
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.

michalss
Posts: 41
Joined: Feb 08, 2010 1:31 pm

#15 Postby michalss » May 09, 2011 5:33 am

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 :P)
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.


Return to “XFileSharing Pro”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests