Unsolved
This post is more than 5 years old
12 Posts
0
178523
PowerEdge T110 II SATA RAID5
Hello community.
I have purchased a used P110II. It seems to work fine, and now I want to upgrade it. It came with a PERC H200A controller. I suppose this one does not support RAID5 (or 6). So I need a relatively cheap but nice quality RAID5 controller for this server, that will have the following characteristics:
1. Battery and/or cache etc. are welcome but not trivial since the machine is going to be used as a centralized storage (no more than 3-4 users and not concurrent).
2. Inexpensive disks will be most probably used (eg. WD RE4 2TB), but support for higher-end disks would be great, as storage may be replaced in the future. SAS 6gbps should also be supported.
I have found many controllers on ebay (mainly by LSI) but I am not sure if they are compatible with the server (OS: Windows Server 2003-2008-2012 - not decided yet). Found also some HBAs but don't know what the difference is.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
DELL-Chris H
Moderator
Moderator
•
8.4K Posts
0
May 21st, 2015 09:00
Fesarlis,
The only controller that would allow you to have a Raid 5, while being supported on the T110 II, would be the S300 (SW Raid controller). The H200 hardware controller will only support Raid 0, 1, and 10's. Now neither of these options will offer any cache ability, so that is where they don't meet your needs.
S300 p/n 342-3349
H200 p/n 342-3347
Let me know if this helps answer your questions.
fesarlis
12 Posts
0
May 22nd, 2015 01:00
Thank you for your reply. Just one minor clarification.
When you say that it won't be supported, what exactly do you mean? What would happen if I just put some PCIE controller inside the machine?
Sorry for this but it does not sound very reasonable. In fact, if this is an official Dell statement, it will sound absurd.
theflash1932
7 Technologist
7 Technologist
•
16.3K Posts
1
May 22nd, 2015 12:00
Which is absurd? That a $300 server wasn't intended to use a $500-800 controller for high-performance RAID? or that random third-party hardware is not guaranteed to work in a Dell server?
"Supported" means that Dell has tested and validated the parts and can guarantee its reliability and operation. By saying "unsupported" (which he didn't), Dell simply hasn't tested it - they have no way (or obligation) to say for certain that it does or doesn't work - it simply hasn't been tested to the point that Dell can vouch for it. This means that YOU are responsible for getting it to work, maintaining it, and troubleshooting any/all issues that might arise. Dell won't assist in any storage or stability issues with "some PCIe" controller installed. They will assist you in determining the overall health of the system without the card, but you would need to remove it for any assistance. With a "supported" controller and the system running in a "supported"/validated configuration, they are both willing and obligated to "get to the bottom" of any issue that may represent a hardware or compatibility issue.
fesarlis
12 Posts
0
May 22nd, 2015 21:00
This was not meant to be taken personally by anyone, and under no way I would like anyone to think that I do not appreciate their responses. It is a discussion and not a flame and would like it to stay this way.
However I can't say that I agree, although I totally understand what you (and previous friend) say. For the following reasons:
1. This thread was not opened to be informed for the official Dell policy (I might as well read the machine specs for that). Its main purpose was to get at least one reply from a fellow who have used a third-party controller, and their experience by using it. I wouldn't want to think that forum rules do not allow such posts, right?
2. I find your comment about the cost of the machine very unfortunate (even though the machine does not cost $300). What does this imply? That we cannot afford a 'serious' server, or that we cannot expect a cheap server to support basic expanding? I have been managing datacenter machines with 10GBe iSCSI SANs for years. This does not mean that I would have to buy a machine I don't need just to be RELIABLE. I purchased this one because it seemed like a good bargain (which it was) and because I do not need something more in terms of resources. This cannot mean that I would not want to have some kind of essential fault-tolerance. I have seen threads for RAID5 controllers be run in home PCs and MBs with no issues.
theflash1932
7 Technologist
7 Technologist
•
16.3K Posts
0
May 22nd, 2015 23:00
I'm sorry if my response seemed harsh. I didn't mean to insult or demean.
1. NOTHING in your post violates any forum rules or policies - I just don't think your intent was clear. From your respsonse, you were asking for others' ventures into the PowerEdge unknown, but the wording left it open to inquiring of "supported" upgrades and options, which is why you received the initial response that you did from Chris. I completely understand going beyond or straying from the "supported" pathways, but it is important to realize when that is occurring and what it means.
2. While the T110 II is currently $449, it is often offered for $299. I am no implying anything. This was not a dig at you, but a commentary on the server itself. It might be a bargain for some uses - and it surely has its place in the PowerEdge world - but it is a low-end server with severe limitations, both in actual specs and in design. Is there anything wrong with putting a high-end controller to run RAID 5 with write-caching? No, not at all, but that was not an intended use for this server, so understandably, you would be on your own in such a scenario. Dell also can't support every concievable configuration, so it is reasonable for them to only support the solutions they have tested. Sometimes the fun for us IT guys is the challenge of getting strange configurations to work for some specific use, but we can't expect Dell to hold our hands during the process, so the policy can't be absurd either. I agree that basic fault tolerance should be a basic feature of all servers, and the T110 offers that, but only basic solutions. Someone looking for a budget server probably is not going to want the pricetag of advanced RAID features (or other components for that matter).
Perhaps unrelated ... there are many cases out there against RAID 5 as a viable option in today's storage landscape, preferring instead the more robust speed of RAID 10.
Perhaps someone who has tried this will add their experiences here. Good luck.
fesarlis
12 Posts
0
May 23rd, 2015 00:00
No problem at all. Thanks for such a detailed reply. Will wait for other people stories about this and decide a bit later.
Just one thing: You mention RAID10 which is great. The ONLY reason I would like to use RAID5 is because it requires 2 disks to fail for data loss. Do you think that I achieve the same level of fault tolerance with RAID10? To be honest I am not sure, as I don't know how it will actually distribute data. Not to mention that you will lose half the space unlike RAID5 which is (slightly) better. Would love to hear your comments.
To put it simply: How many disks can fail in a 4-disk RAID5? And how many in a RAID10?
What about >2tb disks? One more reason for H700 (NOTE: I have come across this:
https://blogs.blackmarble.co.uk/blogs/adawson/post/2013/08/08/Cross-Flashing-a-Dell-PERC-H200-BIOS-to-Support-Larger-SATA-Disks.aspx
and I am not sure. Also, and assuming that H200 is a 9211-8i, this creates more confusion. I have read in various places that 9211-8i is not real hardware RAID. Dell claims that H200 is actually hardware RAID)
In case someone else wants to contribute to the discussion:
I am also considering LSI 9261-8i and Adaptec ASR-3805.
theflash1932
7 Technologist
7 Technologist
•
16.3K Posts
0
May 23rd, 2015 00:00
RAID 5 stripes the data AND the parity bits equally across all disks in the array, so regardless of the number of disks in the array, RAID 5 has a single-disk fault tolerance. If a second disk fails in the array, the array is lost.
RAID 10 stripes data across two (or more) nodes made up of RAID 1 pairs, so it does not suffer the write penalty of RAID 5 (due to parity), maintains a more consistent state when degraded, and the reads are as fast or faster than a RAID 5. The downside of RAID 10 is the "disk cost", because if your storage space is equal to half the disks in the array, while RAID 5 costs only one disk's worth of space (when talking about 3 disks, the cost seems "almost" the same, but it still only costs one disk if you have an 8-disk RAID 5 too).
RAID 10 can withstand 1 OR 2 failed disks, depending on which ones fails. If you have 4 disks in RAID 10 - two sets of RAID 1 pairs, one from each RAID 1 pair can fail without losing the array, but if you lose BOTH disks from the same RAID 1 pair, then the array is lost.
fesarlis
12 Posts
0
May 25th, 2015 00:00
Thanks so much. Will proceed with purchasing a PERC H700. I have already got 2 SAS 2TB disks (Seagate Constellation ST2000NM0023 - still looking for third). Some more questions:
1. My SAS cable connected to my H200 is PN 42N7H. I have also found another cable with PN 233TD. Are these interchangeable? They certainly look the same.
2. I have tried to connect both SATA and SAS drives using this cable. Seem to work fine. My question is: Can I also connect an SSD disk to use for my OS?
So I guess my final composition would be one 60GB SATA3 SSD and 3 2TB 6gbps SAS disks in RAID5. Sounds OK?
I really appreciate your help on this.
theflash1932
7 Technologist
7 Technologist
•
16.3K Posts
0
May 25th, 2015 10:00
They could be the same cable but differ only in the part number - different locations, manufacturers, etc. can affect the part numbers, so it is possible to have "essentially" the same part with two different part numbers.
If using an H700, you can have SAS or SATA (HDD or SSD) connected. You just can't mix drive type in the same RAID array.
Just remember that the H700 does not support non-RAID, so even if you have a single disk, it must be configured as a single-disk RAID 0.
fesarlis
12 Posts
0
June 6th, 2015 00:00
Thank you.
Finally due to some other issues I cannot go with an H700, and considering H310 instead. I am aware of its limitations, but I would like the community's opinion especially for my case.
This server is going to be used primarily as centralized storage. It is not intended to provide read/write access to many users. At a given time, max 3 users will be connected.
However, it is also going to store some VMware guests (it's not going to be an ESXi but a Windows Server), and those guests will be used by users primarily for website development. In other words, the guests are not susceptible to heavy usage.
Do you think I should go with this controller and set it up as RAID5 based on the above usage scenario? At the moment, file transfers between PCs in our network max 60-70MB/s. This is satisfactory for us.
I currently have 3 similar 2TB 6bps SAS disks (Seagate st2000nm0023). Two of them are Dell branded and the third one is Seagate branded.
Will I be able to flash the Seagate disk with the Dell firmware?
theflash1932
7 Technologist
7 Technologist
•
16.3K Posts
0
June 6th, 2015 23:00
No.
Does the website(s) have a database? Server-side code? Provide an API? Is the site(s) public? If you are running three virtual machines for "development" of any sort, you may find the performance of your array lacking for this task, even with an H700, but if your developers are not picky or demanding on speed or performance, then go for it.
fesarlis
12 Posts
0
June 10th, 2015 05:00
The sites wont be public, and the databases are not disk-intensive.
One thought: What would happen if I tried to install a rebranded controller (eg. an LSI 9260-8i which is branded by Fujitsu), or even an HP controller? Would it work? I have a good experience from an HP P212 and I would consider it.
theflash1932
7 Technologist
7 Technologist
•
16.3K Posts
0
June 10th, 2015 08:00
The H700 is your best bet. You can certainly try an HP, Fujitsu, or even generic LSI, but there is obviously no guarantee they will work. Dell designs their servers and controllers to work together. So does Fujitsu and HP. There is always a chance that OEM hardware will not play inter-OEM nicely.
cj8281
71 Posts
0
September 17th, 2022 19:00
I am running an LSI 9260-8i with 4 Seagate Constellation SaS drives. The LSI came with a battery but no cabling so I found one on evilBay. Configured in raid 5. I don't see why everyone gets their panties in a wad over Raid 5. I don't see the point in buying 12tb of hard drives and then only having 6 to play with. One thing with this controller, it was made when PS2 keyboards were still in use. You have to do some keyboard trickery to get into the webpage to set up the controller. It has been awhile since I have had to get into it so I don't readily have keystrokes that work with mine. I have a second machine that has a PERC and three "authentic" dell drives that have been well used so if I lose a drive in my primary machine I can simply do an updated back up to that machine. My machines are just for home use and not for anything. I like the dell machines more than the HPs that I have had. I really like my older dells as I think they were more high end. The T110ii seems more like a work station being used as a server, what with the limit on the ram and only a single cpu.
My primary drive is a little SATA SSD that is attached in the lower optical bay connected to the motherboard.
I haven't quite figured out how to change the driver for the onboard video so I am running a Radeon HD 3450 graphics card, it works just fine.