Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
SAS drives and Raid
- Thread starter jgbr
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
nanofrog will probably be here shortly, but from what I have gathered, it's best not to buy Apple's RAID card due to expense and that it isn't too great. I also don't believe you can use SAS drives, as the bays still use standard SATA connectors.
SAS drives work fine, provided you've got the Apple RAID card.
If you opt for a third party RAID card (which is what's recommended) you have to use third party drive sleds since the standard bays do not work with third party RAID controllers.
If you opt for a third party RAID card (which is what's recommended) you have to use third party drive sleds since the standard bays do not work with third party RAID controllers.
Will using these bay adapters to the backplane limit 6G SATA3 drives to SATA2 3G speeds? Is it possible not to get these bays and use default ones that come with the mac pro and just not use their connectors and instead run mni SAS-4x SATA multiplier and connect to the drives in the bays ? Or is going via the backplane internal channels the only option ?
Just sticking to this question and ignoring any other factors, the Apple RAID Pro card does work with SAS disks.
I finally made it...
The Apple RAID Pro is definitely junk IMO (expensive for a 4 port card that only works with one OS, slow, and still has battery problems).
A 3rd party alternative offers more value for the money, as well as options, speed, and features (especially for recovery in the case of ATTO or Areca, as both of these keep a copy of the partition tables in the card's firmware - most don't).
This is the right way to go card wise, and the adapter kit if the disks are to be internal (cheaper than an external enclosure).
SAS can definitely make a difference in Database usage, as they're designed for higher IOPS than SATA.
But the specifics will matter. So think of answers for the following questions (may not be all inclusive, but hopefully enough to get started):
- What are you doing exactly (how much of what's used, ...)?
- What is the primary configuration/requirements as well as the backup requirements?
- What is the capacity needed now, and what is your growth rate (figure the system needs to fit your needs for at least 3 years and only add disks and enclosures)?
- What are your throughput requirements (what you're doing can help, but this really nails it down if you can produce a number)?
- What is the user count for the database?
- What is your budget?
No.
The limitation will only exist if the SSD's are connected to a SATA II controller (forces the SSD to step down to that spec).
But if you get a SATA III compliant card (6.0Gb/s - there are both non-RAID and RAID versions from ATTO, RAID only so far from Areca - not sure when they'll get the non-RAID versions out), then the cable's included with that adapter kit will not throttle the speed.
Besides Nanofrog's really good advice there is also another option, namely going with the ZFS filesystem, which can make dynamic stripes on its own.
In this manner you can skip on the expensive RAID-card altogether and opt for more drives and the only filesystem that really offers data integrity.
You could grab this 12-bay Hot-swappable enclosure for a meager $399.99 and have enough upgrade options down the road.
In this manner you can skip on the expensive RAID-card altogether and opt for more drives and the only filesystem that really offers data integrity.
You could grab this 12-bay Hot-swappable enclosure for a meager $399.99 and have enough upgrade options down the road.
I'm a fan of the ZFS filesystem, as it can offer less expensive alternatives for some (have to make sure the server can handle the overhead, and the user has the technical know how to implement and manage the software, especially if it's via a form of Linux to save on funds).
There are ready-made solutions out there though (not tried anything out on a Mac, so I don't know if there's issues). But one company that does a decent job of it is Oracle.
well the server is only handling a few users files and the rest is email/dhcpgateway etc
so im really wondering if sas and raid card is worth it? or better soultions? or should i try to distrub the servers files or just slap 4 identical sata drives in etc.
so im really wondering if sas and raid card is worth it? or better soultions? or should i try to distrub the servers files or just slap 4 identical sata drives in etc.
If the user count isn't that high (low IOPS), then sticking with SATA could suffice (figure ~90 IOPS for a single SATA disk).
There's still very little info to go on here, so it's hard to give you solid answers.
The 2009 model does mention the use of SAS but the 2010 model only mentions SATA. It might be that since the 2010 model there is no SAS support anymore but I can't find much information about it.
If by that you mean pissing off everybody than yes, Oracle is very good at that. If you mean decent jobs on software...that is highly debatable (OpenOffice.org, Linux, Solaris, OpenSolaris, btrfs, zfs, etc.).
SATA should be fine for that few users.
In the case of Oracle VM software for storage (meant to be used with Sun's storage appliances), it works when configured properly (the hard part
).That is nowhere near enough info to say anything about when the sata will be saturated. There are an awful lot of things that have an influence on the speed. The server will not be doing just 1 thing but several things at the same time. That adds to the complexity but you can make a good educated guess.
As others have mentioned, this isn't possible ATM given the lack of information.
If you at least posted the IOPS performance data from that server, it would help.