RAID configuration on HP Proliant DL360 G7 ?

February 7, 2011 at 11:39:58
Specs: Server 2008 R2, 3GHz/1GB

Hello,

I am planning the hard drive installation for a server rebuild. I plan to use raid 5 on as many volumes as possible but since the server only has 8 2.5" SAS drive bays, there is only the possibility for 2 RAID 5 setups and then space for an additional raid 0 or 1.

I will be installing server 2008 64 with Hyper-V as a host for 2 other virtual machine installs of server 2008 64 (so 3 server os installations in total).

I want to install 2008 on one raid 5 volume (that's 3 of my bays gone) and then I want to create 2 more raid 5 volumes, one for each of my virtual machines. I will be installing the virtual hard disk files of the virtual machines each on their own volume, each volume created from one of the raid 5 setups. This way they will have their own dedicated raid 5 array which hopefully will give good performance while having a bit of fault tolerance.

So my problem is that I don't have enough bays for my plan. I do not have any experience of using seperate rack mounted nas drives with raid controllers. Can I add an enclosure to the rack that can take at least 3 more drives (would be desirable to add expandability for 6 more drives as I need to add a further general network storage volume later)? What are my options in connecting this with the G7 server? Will it use a SAS (scsi) bus from the server or should it be seperate with it's own raid controller and be accessed through the network? Which will have better performance, linking the new raid enclosure to the existing server or having it as a stand alone nas solution accessed though its own network interface?

Also, since the 2.5" sas drives are expensive, would be good to get something that can take the cheaper 3.5" (as long as they are 10k rpm), I'm saying this assuming that the only disadvantage of the 3.5" 10k sas drives is the size?

Can the raid controller in the HP DL360 G7 (P410i) even support 3 raid setups?

Would be brilliant to get answers to my millions of questions.

Thanks!


See More: RAID configuration on HP Proliant DL360 G7 ?

Report •


#1
February 7, 2011 at 14:37:35

You have 8 SAS drives

If it were me, I'd use two drives in a RAID 1 for the operating system. That leaves you 6 drives, enough for two RAID 5's containing 3 disks each.

NEVER use RAID 0, it has no redundancy.

Can the raid controller in the HP DL360 G7 (P410i) even support 3 raid setups?

RTFM - that means, Read The Freaking Manual

I say that because the manual will contain this type of info. Oh and don't tell me the dog ate your manual because anybody with half a brain knows you'll be able to find it on the internet.

It matters not how straight the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

***William Henley***


Report •

#2
February 7, 2011 at 16:42:16

Better to do raid10 [faster] and have two drives as hot spares, imo.

Answers are only as good as the information you provide.
How to properly post a question:
Sorry no tech support via PM's


Report •

#3
February 8, 2011 at 05:04:18

Thanks for your replies.

I did actually try to rtfm but I don't understand what part tells me the actual amount of raid arrays I am limited to with the p410i. It says they support up to 24 drives but I can't see how many arrays it's limited to. I think I'm fine with 3 but just want to double check.

I'm now considering this:
2 drives in raid 1 for host os (this machine would be only used for hosting the virtual machines)
2 drives in raid 1 for vhd1 (this vm will be used to host one DB server, only about 10-15% max of network clients would ever access this)
4 drives in raid 1 + 0 for vhd2 (this will run the bulk of the network, will be a dc and serve all users shares)

I'm thinking that I can go ahead straight away with this setup after buying a couple of drives. This would greatly reduce the cost and I'm not sure how much of a performance benefit we will get from all being in raid 5 rather than two raid 1's and one raid 1+0? This way everything still has redundancy and the bulk of the work can be done by the raid 1+0 setup. What do we think about this?

Thanks.


Report •

Related Solutions


Ask Question