Server drive speed

Ish · 9 Jan 2018 at 13:39

Hi

We currently have a Dell T310 server which was SBS2011 but I then changed to Server 2016. It is mainly used as a AD, File /print server and also runs 1 SQL database. We have around 10-15 users.

It has been very reliable and has served us well for the last 6 years but we are now looking to upgrade it before we do start getting problems and as we would like more storage space.

We will probably replace it with a Dell T430 and my question is with regards to the hard drive speed we should go for. Our current server has 2 x 1TB 7.2k SATA drives in Raid 1 formation.

We were thinking of 3 or 4 drives of 2TB in raid 5 formation for the new server but how much difference will we see between the following drives?

7.2k SATA 6Gbps Hot Plug

7.2k NLSAS 12Gbps Hot Plug

covenantuk · 9 Jan 2018 at 15:04

Don't use RAID5, especially on a disk holding SQL. Having seen multiple RAID5 arrays with a 2nd drive failure on rebuild after a disk failure I'd go for RAID10

Armageus · 9 Jan 2018 at 15:35

Ish said:
7.2k SATA 6Gbps Hot Plug

7.2k NLSAS 12Gbps Hot Plug

You will see basically no difference between the two. Drive bandwidth (6gbps/12gbps) makes next to no difference in real world use case, similarly the difference between SATA and SAS has no real performance benefit (although SAS drives tend to be rated for more reliability).

As above, RAID5 isn't really a valid suggestion for any use case these days - either stick with RAID1 (and have 2 separate RAID1 arrays e.g. 2 Drives for file server etc, and then the database on another 2 Drives)

Without knowing about how much storage you need, or what your database is for, then using your T430 choice, I'd opt for the 16x2.5" configuration, and then do something like:
2x 300GB 10K SAS in RAID1 for the OS
4x 1TB 7.2K NL SAS in RAID10 for file server
2x 300GB 15K SAS in RAID1 for the database

Caged · 9 Jan 2018 at 23:03

Don't buy expensive 'fast' magnetic storage, it's pointless. Flash is where it's at.

Steveocee · 10 Jan 2018 at 08:26

SQL=RAID10
Something flash based for the OS then as much as you can into your RAID10 array. The bone of contention with RAID10 is that for every drive you buy, you're making another redundant but it's stable and fast.

Ish · 11 Jan 2018 at 18:54

Thanks for all the advice. It is much appreciated.

bledd · 25 Jan 2018 at 09:22

Raid10, SSDs.

crinkleshoes · 25 Jan 2018 at 10:25

Like others have said, raid 10 is the best option & don't waste money on 10k/15k drives... their performance is still nowhere near.

The Crucial MX300 drives have held up well in server environments and they're quite cheap while performing well.

#Chri5# · 25 Jan 2018 at 10:36

crinkleshoes said:
Like others have said, raid 10 is the best option & don't waste money on 10k/15k drives... their performance is still nowhere near.

The Crucial MX300 drives have held up well in server environments and they're quite cheap while performing well.

Downside is OMSA will flag them (SATA SSDs) as a non-critical warnings which might bug you if you monitor hardware status: