Opinons sought on external storage

[bpanders71]

I'm looking to add some storage capacity to my network so I can
implement a disk to disk to tape backup. Here's what I have:

HP Proliant DL380 G3 server - 3 - 36.4 GB 10k U320 SCSI drives in RAID
5 - only 20 GB free on the drive.
Veritas Backup Exec 10, moving to 10d soon

My budget is very small, let's say under $700, and I've been looking at
the LaCie ethernet disk mini external hard drives in the 400-500 GB
range. Ideally, I'd connect via USB 2.0 for the fastest data transfer
and this drive would only be used to store nightly backups which are in
the 57-60 GB range.

Problem is, the DL380 G3 has USB 1.1 only, and HP tells me they not
only don't support me inserting a USB 2.0 PCI-x card, but that it will
not work. Their only suggestion is to go with SCSI drives. However,
not only does that probably put me out of my budget, but eliminates the
simplicity of having a drive that is portable and can be installed on
any machine.

I understand the laCie drives support gigabit, but that is not an
option for me either. I only have one gigabit port on the switch, and
it is dedicated to the DL380. Basically, I have 100Mb or USB 1.1
according to HP, if I use this drive. I could probably purchase a
small gigabit switch and hook it to the gigabit port on my current
switch, but memory serves me that isn't really going to give me true
gigabit to the devices on the second, smaller gigabit switch (I could
be wrong).

What options am I not thinking of here? Reducing my nightly backup
window and providing for redundant disk based backup, while being
portable if necessary are the primary goals.

Thanks-
Brian

 

[Iago]

I'm looking to add some storage capacity to my network so I can
implement a disk to disk to tape backup. Here's what I have:

HP Proliant DL380 G3 server - 3 - 36.4 GB 10k U320 SCSI drives in RAID
5 - only 20 GB free on the drive.
Veritas Backup Exec 10, moving to 10d soon

My budget is very small, let's say under $700, and I've been looking at
the LaCie ethernet disk mini external hard drives in the 400-500 GB
range. Ideally, I'd connect via USB 2.0 for the fastest data transfer
and this drive would only be used to store nightly backups which are in
the 57-60 GB range.

What I don't like with your plan is that you're choosing consumer grade
stuff to backup a business grade server, a very bad idea, IMO. Also
physically moving a drive often is asking for trouble (if this is what
you were thinking).

I understand the budget is tight, but check this out:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/10/20/43OPstorinside_1.html

A non-RAID SAS card and an external box with 1 or two SATA drives
should do and leave room to grow.

Good luck

 

[bpanders71]

Thanks lago, I'll look into that. Quite timely too.

I'm not planning on physically moving the drive often, rather, if there
were a problem with the server where it was not responsive, then at
least I could plug the drive into another machine, install the backup
software and restore the server. If I had internal SCSI drives (per
HP's suggestion), I could put them in another hp server, but I don't
have any open slots on my other server. We're a small business running
three servers, so I figured the LaCie might work in that scenario, but
I'll look more into this SAS idea.

I do have a SCSI controller on the server connecting to my tape drive,
so perhaps there are some options there too.

Thanks-
Brian

 

[Peter]

I'm looking to add some storage capacity to my network so I can

implement a disk to disk to tape backup. Here's what I have:

HP Proliant DL380 G3 server - 3 - 36.4 GB 10k U320 SCSI drives in RAID
5 - only 20 GB free on the drive.
Veritas Backup Exec 10, moving to 10d soon

My budget is very small, let's say under $700, and I've been looking at
the LaCie ethernet disk mini external hard drives in the 400-500 GB
range. Ideally, I'd connect via USB 2.0 for the fastest data transfer
and this drive would only be used to store nightly backups which are in
the 57-60 GB range.

Problem is, the DL380 G3 has USB 1.1 only, and HP tells me they not
only don't support me inserting a USB 2.0 PCI-x card, but that it will
not work. Their only suggestion is to go with SCSI drives. However,
not only does that probably put me out of my budget, but eliminates the
simplicity of having a drive that is portable and can be installed on
any machine.

I understand the laCie drives support gigabit, but that is not an
option for me either. I only have one gigabit port on the switch, and
it is dedicated to the DL380. Basically, I have 100Mb or USB 1.1
according to HP, if I use this drive. I could probably purchase a
small gigabit switch and hook it to the gigabit port on my current
switch, but memory serves me that isn't really going to give me true
gigabit to the devices on the second, smaller gigabit switch (I could
be wrong).

What options am I not thinking of here? Reducing my nightly backup
window and providing for redundant disk based backup, while being
portable if necessary are the primary goals.

If it is only 50-60 GB per night, why not disk->network->tape scenario?
Even with 100mbps you can do 35-40 GB in one hour. With a gigabit Ethernet
you can triple that.

 

[Eric Gisin]

Problem is, the DL380 G3 has USB 1.1 only, and HP tells me they not
only don't support me inserting a USB 2.0 PCI-x card, but that it will
not work. Their only suggestion is to go with SCSI drives. However,
not only does that probably put me out of my budget, but eliminates the
simplicity of having a drive that is portable and can be installed on
any machine.

That sounds like bullshit. Does the server have just PCI-X slots?

If so, you can install a PCI 2.1+ 3.3V USB2 or 1394 card.
The only problem is it may slow down other PCI-X slots.

 

[bpanders71]

That's what I'm trying to move towards, a disc to disc to tape scenario
to shorten my otherwise 7 hour backup and verify to something a bit
more manageable. I could hook up the LaCie via ethernet and assign an
IP address, but I'm not certain how dependable this unit is. Looking
into the SAS options lago mentioned above, I can buy roughly a 360 GB
SATA drive with SAS controller card and enclosure for $850.

How does SATA compare to ethernet with regards to speed (using the SAS
example pointed out)?

Best-
Brian

 

[bpanders71]

I forgot to add, I don't have a single server that has more than 20 GB
of free space to dump the backup on, thus the need for the additional
storage space to perform a disc to disc to tape backup.

Thanks-
Brian

 

[bpanders71]

Yes, two PCI-x slots left, one at 100Mhz, the other 133 Mhz. I've got
one of the 100 Mhz slots occupied by an Adaptec SCSI Controller card.
I thought it sounded fishy myself, and that a simple, "We're not
supporting this configuration" would have been sufficient, rather than
it's not going to work.

Ignorant question though, I thought PCI-X only came out a year or so
ago, or is that different from PCI express?

Thanks-
Brian

 

[Mike Tomlinson]

That sounds like bullshit. Does the server have just PCI-X slots?

Yes, it does. (We have several at work in a rack.)

If so, you can install a PCI 2.1+ 3.3V USB2 or 1394 card.

Any recommendations? I've tried several, but they were all 5V only
(even when the picture in the catalogue showed two notches.) Got hold
of a 3.3V one (with the extra notch), but the machine reports "Power
fault in hot plug PCI Slot 2" at boot and the OS can't see the card.

The same machine also locks up hard randomly if the onboard USB 1.1
connectors are used, which is why I want to fit a PCI cars. The
motherboard's been changed out under warranty with no difference in
behaviour.

The only problem is it may slow down other PCI-X slots.

Wouldn't bother me if I could just find a 3.3V card that worked.

 

[Iago]

Thanks lago, I'll look into that. Quite timely too.

I'm not planning on physically moving the drive often, rather, if there
were a problem with the server where it was not responsive, then at
least I could plug the drive into another machine, install the backup
software and restore the server. If I had internal SCSI drives (per
HP's suggestion), I could put them in another hp server, but I don't
have any open slots on my other server.

I'm probably paranoid, but also planning to open up a server to do a
restore sounds risky. Also those RAID controllers can be a PITA and
accept a drive only after rebuilding a LUN with it.

We're a small business running
three servers, so I figured the LaCie might work in that scenario, but
I'll look more into this SAS idea.

I do have a SCSI controller on the server connecting to my tape drive,
so perhaps there are some options there too.

Adding a shared drive, perhaps? Anyway SAS transfer rate is 3Gbps, but
YMMV

 

[bpanders71]

No, on the DL 380 the SCSI drives are hot swappable and are easily
removed from the front, so it's not really a big deal. I've got a
DL360 too, which is also hot swappable.

Looked into SAS, called Adaptec even, and they recommended a Snap
Server instead, so I'll look into that as well, but 3 Gbps is pretty
nice sounding.

Thanks-
Brian

 

[Iago]

No, on the DL 380 the SCSI drives are hot swappable and are easily
removed from the front, so it's not really a big deal. I've got a
DL360 too, which is also hot swappable.

Looked into SAS, called Adaptec even, and they recommended a Snap
Server instead, so I'll look into that as well, but 3 Gbps is pretty
nice sounding.

Thanks-
Brian

Adaptec is dumping the Snap Servers. Doesn't make them a bad choice
necessarily, but the SAS road has more future...

 

[Peter]

That's what I'm trying to move towards, a disc to disc to tape scenario

to shorten my otherwise 7 hour backup and verify to something a bit
more manageable.

You have also said "Reducing my nightly backup window and providing for
redundant disk based backup, while being portable if necessary are the
primary goals."

What is slightly confusing is "being portable" term you have used. Portable
to where? Other identical Proliant servers? Portable as disk with tape
drive, or just disk itself?

Does it have attached external SCSI connector (VHDCI) connected to your
Smart Array 5i Plus controller ?
Then you can just buy an external SCSI Drive to match your system.
Or external storage using IDE drives which connect using Ultra160 LVD SCSI,
like this:
http://www.pc-pitstop.com/scsi_enclosures/ARS3010L.asp

I could hook up the LaCie via ethernet and assign an
IP address, but I'm not certain how dependable this unit is.

I wouldn't trust that solution.

Looking
into the SAS options lago mentioned above, I can buy roughly a 360 GB
SATA drive with SAS controller card and enclosure for $850.

Do you call an external SAS drive and SAS controller as portable?
Where did you find "360GB SATA drive with SAS controller card and enclosure
for $850"?

How does SATA compare to ethernet with regards to speed (using the SAS
example pointed out)?

Obviously SAS is much faster than gigabit Ethernet.
Could be more than 3 to 1. But that assumes that your disk subsystem can
match that interface speed.
I can saturate gigabit ethernet by running data from a single (S)ATA 7200rpm
disk, but there is no single hard drive approaching sustained 3mbps data
transfers.

 

[Peter]

Obviously SAS is much faster than gigabit Ethernet.

Could be more than 3 to 1. But that assumes that your disk subsystem can
match that interface speed.
I can saturate gigabit ethernet by running data from a single (S)ATA 7200rpm
disk, but there is no single hard drive approaching sustained 3mbps data
transfers.

Oops, I meant 3gbps data transfers.

 

[J. Clarke]

You have also said "Reducing my nightly backup window and providing for
redundant disk based backup, while being portable if necessary are the
primary goals."

What is slightly confusing is "being portable" term you have used.
Portable to where? Other identical Proliant servers? Portable as disk with
tape drive, or just disk itself?

Does it have attached external SCSI connector (VHDCI) connected to your
Smart Array 5i Plus controller ?
Then you can just buy an external SCSI Drive to match your system.
Or external storage using IDE drives which connect using Ultra160 LVD
SCSI, like this:
http://www.pc-pitstop.com/scsi_enclosures/ARS3010L.asp


I wouldn't trust that solution.


Do you call an external SAS drive and SAS controller as portable?
Where did you find "360GB SATA drive with SAS controller card and
enclosure for $850"?


Obviously SAS is much faster than gigabit Ethernet.
Could be more than 3 to 1. But that assumes that your disk subsystem can
match that interface speed.
I can saturate gigabit ethernet by running data from a single (S)ATA
7200rpm disk, but there is no single hard drive approaching sustained
3mbps data transfers.

The fastest SATA disks on the market can sustain 72 MB/sec on the outermost
tracks under ideal conditions. That's not going to saturate gigabit. And
you're unlikely to ever see those "ideal conditions".

 

[Peter]

I can saturate gigabit ethernet by running data from a single (S)ATA

The fastest SATA disks on the market can sustain 72 MB/sec on the outermost
tracks under ideal conditions. That's not going to saturate gigabit. And
you're unlikely to ever see those "ideal conditions".

It does saturate my gigabit connection. Sustained local disk transfer goes
at 65MB/s for a few gigabytes, but only 45MB/s over gigabit ethernet.

 

[Mike Redrobe]

It does saturate my gigabit connection. Sustained local disk transfer
goes at 65MB/s for a few gigabytes, but only 45MB/s over gigabit
ethernet.

That sounds like you are not using jumbo (9k) frames.

The standard ethernet frame size is 1500 bytes, so the nic has
to send 66,000 packets/sec to saturate a gigabit connection,
the nic/cpu might struggle with that.

If you switch to jumbo frames of 9KB, then you cut the number
of packets needed by a factor of 6, providing your router
supports it.

The other problem is the PCI bus only has about
1gigabit total bw available, 66Mhz and 64bit might help too

 

[Peter]

I can saturate gigabit ethernet by running data from a single (S)ATA

That sounds like you are not using jumbo (9k) frames.

The standard ethernet frame size is 1500 bytes, so the nic has
to send 66,000 packets/sec to saturate a gigabit connection,
the nic/cpu might struggle with that.

If you switch to jumbo frames of 9KB,

How do I do that on Win2003/XP ?

then you cut the number
of packets needed by a factor of 6, providing your router
supports it.

Router? I'm using a switch between those two PCs.

 

[J. Clarke]

It does saturate my gigabit connection. Sustained local disk transfer goes
at 65MB/s for a few gigabytes, but only 45MB/s over gigabit ethernet.

Which shows that you've hit _some_ limit but since that's well under half
the bandwidth of gigabit it's likely that the limit you're hitting is
something internal to your machine, most likely the PCI bus, which
typically, in the real world, limits network transfer rates to around 400
Mb/sec.