Which linux Distro
3 views
Skip to first unread message
javid
Nov 9, 2009, 1:49:17 PM11/9/09
to Hardhats
As I reported earlier my debian box crashed but was luckily able to
get the data without issues.( Bhaskar, thanks for the live CD tip).
As i start to rebuild the server, i thought i would ask a few
questions that i am a little confused with :
- What distro should I go with. I understand Debian is pretty stable
but I have learnt there are not lot of other apps readily available
for it.
- I have 2 hardware RAID arrays on the server previously. RAID 1 and
RAID 10. I tried to put Debian mostly on RAID 1 and data on RAID 10.
My research tells me that I may not benefit much from 2 arrays. Is
this true.
Thanks you in anticipation
Javid
get the data without issues.( Bhaskar, thanks for the live CD tip).
As i start to rebuild the server, i thought i would ask a few
questions that i am a little confused with :
- What distro should I go with. I understand Debian is pretty stable
but I have learnt there are not lot of other apps readily available
for it.
- I have 2 hardware RAID arrays on the server previously. RAID 1 and
RAID 10. I tried to put Debian mostly on RAID 1 and data on RAID 10.
My research tells me that I may not benefit much from 2 arrays. Is
this true.
Thanks you in anticipation
Javid
Jonathan Tai
Nov 9, 2009, 2:12:56 PM11/9/09
to hard...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 10:49 -0800, javid wrote:
> As I reported earlier my debian box crashed but was luckily able to
> get the data without issues.( Bhaskar, thanks for the live CD tip).
>
> As i start to rebuild the server, i thought i would ask a few
> questions that i am a little confused with :
>
> - What distro should I go with. I understand Debian is pretty stable
> but I have learnt there are not lot of other apps readily available
> for it.
> As I reported earlier my debian box crashed but was luckily able to
> get the data without issues.( Bhaskar, thanks for the live CD tip).
>
> As i start to rebuild the server, i thought i would ask a few
> questions that i am a little confused with :
>
> - What distro should I go with. I understand Debian is pretty stable
> but I have learnt there are not lot of other apps readily available
> for it.
I'm not sure where you heard that -- I believe Debian has one of the
largest archives of any distribution. According to this page,
http://www.debian.org/intro/why_debian , there are over 25,000 packages
available through apt.
> - I have 2 hardware RAID arrays on the server previously. RAID 1 and
> RAID 10. I tried to put Debian mostly on RAID 1 and data on RAID 10.
> My research tells me that I may not benefit much from 2 arrays. Is
> this true.
Having your OS and data on separate partitions allows you to install a
different distribution without affecting your data. It also means that
if you run out of room on your data partition, your OS will not be
affected.
The downside is the complexity of managing two different arrays, and the
fact that you have to pre-allocate a set amount of disk space for your
OS.
- Jon
Aylesworth, Marc CTR USAF AFMC AFRL/RISE
Nov 9, 2009, 2:47:01 PM11/9/09
to hard...@googlegroups.com
I concur, I made the mistake of downloading all the CDs for a debian distro and I want to say it was 12 cds worth
Marc Aylesworth
RRC C3I Group
525 Brooks Road
Rome, NY 13440
PH: 315-330-2422
Marc Aylesworth
RRC C3I Group
525 Brooks Road
Rome, NY 13440
PH: 315-330-2422
javid
Nov 9, 2009, 8:22:54 PM11/9/09
to Hardhats
just to clarify....when i said having multiple raid arrays doesnt
make a difference....i was talking in the context of Linux
environment.
javid
On Nov 9, 2:47 pm, "Aylesworth, Marc CTR USAF AFMC AFRL/RISE"
make a difference....i was talking in the context of Linux
environment.
javid
On Nov 9, 2:47 pm, "Aylesworth, Marc CTR USAF AFMC AFRL/RISE"
<Marc.Aylesworth....@rl.af.mil> wrote:
> I concur, I made the mistake of downloading all the CDs for a debian distro and I want to say it was 12 cds worth
>
> Marc Aylesworth
>
> RRC C3I Group
> 525 Brooks Road
> Rome, NY 13440
> PH: 315-330-2422
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: hard...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hard...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jonathan Tai
> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 2:13 PM
> To: hard...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [Hardhats] Re: Which linux Distro
>
> On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 10:49 -0800, javid wrote:
> > As I reported earlier my debian box crashed but was luckily able to
> > get the data without issues.( Bhaskar, thanks for the live CD tip).
>
> > As i start to rebuild the server, i thought i would ask a few
> > questions that i am a little confused with :
>
> > - What distro should I go with. I understand Debian is pretty stable
> > but I have learnt there are not lot of other apps readily available
> > for it.
>
> I'm not sure where you heard that -- I believe Debian has one of the largest archives of any distribution. According to this page,http://www.debian.org/intro/why_debian, there are over 25,000 packages available through apt.
> I concur, I made the mistake of downloading all the CDs for a debian distro and I want to say it was 12 cds worth
>
> Marc Aylesworth
>
> RRC C3I Group
> 525 Brooks Road
> Rome, NY 13440
> PH: 315-330-2422
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: hard...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hard...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jonathan Tai
> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 2:13 PM
> To: hard...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [Hardhats] Re: Which linux Distro
>
> On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 10:49 -0800, javid wrote:
> > As I reported earlier my debian box crashed but was luckily able to
> > get the data without issues.( Bhaskar, thanks for the live CD tip).
>
> > As i start to rebuild the server, i thought i would ask a few
> > questions that i am a little confused with :
>
> > - What distro should I go with. I understand Debian is pretty stable
> > but I have learnt there are not lot of other apps readily available
> > for it.
>
Butch
Nov 9, 2009, 10:52:43 PM11/9/09
to Hardhats
It will make a difference yes. The thing is, you may or may not
notice the difference. The advantage, as Jonathan pointed out, is
having your data separate from your OS. A disadvantage of hardware
RAID is that if your controller crashes, and you don't have/can't get
an identical controller, you may or may not be able to get that data
back. It's been my experience that hardware RAID controllers
generally have to be identical twins to move an array from one
controller to another. Meaning, same card, same controller chip, same
firmware, etc.
Be sure to make (and test) regular backups, they will be your friend
if you lose a controller.
--
Butch
notice the difference. The advantage, as Jonathan pointed out, is
having your data separate from your OS. A disadvantage of hardware
RAID is that if your controller crashes, and you don't have/can't get
an identical controller, you may or may not be able to get that data
back. It's been my experience that hardware RAID controllers
generally have to be identical twins to move an array from one
controller to another. Meaning, same card, same controller chip, same
firmware, etc.
Be sure to make (and test) regular backups, they will be your friend
if you lose a controller.
--
Butch
javid
Nov 10, 2009, 12:47:35 AM11/10/09
to Hardhats
I know in Windows , all the OS files are in the "Windows" folder.
Which partition does Linus store OS files in?
javid
Which partition does Linus store OS files in?
javid
Crawford Rainwater
Nov 10, 2009, 10:37:36 AM11/10/09
to Hardhats
Javid:
On "where are the files in Linux" you might want to review the Linux
File System Hierarchy to have a better understanding since trying to
compared Microsoft Windows with Linux at that level is like apples
versus cows. They are different indeed (my personal opinion). One
URL from The Linux Documentation Project for starters is at
http://tldp.org/LDP/Linux-Filesystem-Hierarchy/html/
As for which distribution it all depends on your comfort and skill set
with Linux. For most production systems, we suggest Ubuntu (which is
Debian based) or CentOS (RedHat like without the RedHat price tag). I
would also recommend doing server oriented installations instead of
workstation based since it adds in unnecessary "fluff" which also open
up for security risks.
As for the RAID arrangements, Butch is on spot there. A proper RAID
array that does not have the "important data files" (which is TBD by
the end user or system admin here) backed up elsewhere whether it is
to tape, another file storage device, or such is meaningless in the
event of the RAID failing if you cannot access let alone recover the
data.
HTH.
--- Crawford
The Linux ETC Company
10121 Yates Court
Westminster, CO 80031 USA
voice: +1.303.604.2550
web: http://www.linux-etc.com
On "where are the files in Linux" you might want to review the Linux
File System Hierarchy to have a better understanding since trying to
compared Microsoft Windows with Linux at that level is like apples
versus cows. They are different indeed (my personal opinion). One
URL from The Linux Documentation Project for starters is at
http://tldp.org/LDP/Linux-Filesystem-Hierarchy/html/
As for which distribution it all depends on your comfort and skill set
with Linux. For most production systems, we suggest Ubuntu (which is
Debian based) or CentOS (RedHat like without the RedHat price tag). I
would also recommend doing server oriented installations instead of
workstation based since it adds in unnecessary "fluff" which also open
up for security risks.
As for the RAID arrangements, Butch is on spot there. A proper RAID
array that does not have the "important data files" (which is TBD by
the end user or system admin here) backed up elsewhere whether it is
to tape, another file storage device, or such is meaningless in the
event of the RAID failing if you cannot access let alone recover the
data.
HTH.
--- Crawford
The Linux ETC Company
10121 Yates Court
Westminster, CO 80031 USA
voice: +1.303.604.2550
web: http://www.linux-etc.com
kdt...@gmail.com
Nov 10, 2009, 6:29:41 PM11/10/09
to Hardhats
Regarding which Linux OS to use, I would recommend Ubuntu. It is
based on Debian, and thus inherits much of Debian goodness. But is is
also an OS for the mainstream. There are many many forums of new
users asking the same kinds of questions that you are I might ask.
Whereas with Debian, my perception is that they are a little less
tolerant of newbies.
Kevin
based on Debian, and thus inherits much of Debian goodness. But is is
also an OS for the mainstream. There are many many forums of new
users asking the same kinds of questions that you are I might ask.
Whereas with Debian, my perception is that they are a little less
tolerant of newbies.
Kevin
javid
Nov 10, 2009, 9:43:33 PM11/10/09
to Hardhats
I am not totally new to Linux. I did install Debian with lvm & 2
hardware raid arrays on two boxes based on some help from the web
and this forum. I have a basic idea of file architecture of Linux. I
was not really comparing apples with cows....but I was trying to find
similarities..I have been told by several people that Linux sees raid
arrays in continuum so building more than one array may be a waste.
In fact most of the folks one this forum told me to go with one array
when I was trying to build my first Linux server. I went ahead and
build 2 arrays and put /var and /usr on a separate array. Then over 2
years put most of the stuff in /var and /usr
It seems that each distro has its proponents and opponents.....so I
will have to figure this on my own
Butch
Nov 11, 2009, 9:34:26 AM11/11/09
to Hardhats
> similarities..I have been told by several people that Linux sees raid
> arrays in continuum so building more than one array may be a waste.
Multiple arrays will appear as a single device is if you use LVM to
> arrays in continuum so building more than one array may be a waste.
span the arrays. On some distros this is the default behavior, on
others it's not. If you manually create separate LVM's on the two
arrays, then they will stay separate.
> In fact most of the folks one this forum told me to go with one array
> when I was trying to build my first Linux server. I went ahead and
> build 2 arrays and put /var and /usr on a separate array. Then over 2
> years put most of the stuff in /var and /usr
> It seems that each distro has its proponents and opponents.....so I
> will have to figure this on my own
depends as much as anything on how you plan to use the system in the
long run. (test box, production server etc)
Crawford Rainwater
Nov 11, 2009, 10:45:24 AM11/11/09
to Hardhats
Javid:
In the end, Linux is Linux. Each distribution can be separated
primarily by its package manager of choice (e.g., rpm based vs. dpkg
based vs. hand compiled) and the packages within the distribution's
repositories for ease of installation. If you want a comparison of
Linux distributions, go to DistroWatch (http://distrowatch.com ) for a
comparison of almost every Linux distribution out there. Everyone has
his/her preferences such as Butch mentioning CentOS for most cases of
a server platform. Linux ETC recommends CentOS or Ubuntu to most of
our clients depending on the needs. I also use Gentoo personally, but
it is not for the novice nor faint at heart nor those how do not like
waiting while packages are hand compiled over long periods of time to
be optimized on the system. It is like one choosing between red,
yellow, or green apples. They are all apples, just a different color
and slightly different tastes at most.
As for the File System Hierarchy I still think most getting into Linux
should review the documentation I mentioned previously. The classes
Linux ETC teaches involve a section on this for at least an hour for
those coming into the Linux realm from a non *NIX environment. But
just "putting things" in places at random is ill advised. Again, see
the File System Hierarchy for an overall guide so that in the event a
third party that is familiar with Linux can better assist with trouble
shooting and resolution, as well as some package managers may think
something in /usr is not what it is and alter it.
FWIW.
--- Crawford
The Linux ETC Company
10121 Yates Court
Westminster, CO 80031 USA
voice: +1.303.604.2550
web: http://www.linux-etc.com
In the end, Linux is Linux. Each distribution can be separated
primarily by its package manager of choice (e.g., rpm based vs. dpkg
based vs. hand compiled) and the packages within the distribution's
repositories for ease of installation. If you want a comparison of
Linux distributions, go to DistroWatch (http://distrowatch.com ) for a
comparison of almost every Linux distribution out there. Everyone has
his/her preferences such as Butch mentioning CentOS for most cases of
a server platform. Linux ETC recommends CentOS or Ubuntu to most of
our clients depending on the needs. I also use Gentoo personally, but
it is not for the novice nor faint at heart nor those how do not like
waiting while packages are hand compiled over long periods of time to
be optimized on the system. It is like one choosing between red,
yellow, or green apples. They are all apples, just a different color
and slightly different tastes at most.
As for the File System Hierarchy I still think most getting into Linux
should review the documentation I mentioned previously. The classes
Linux ETC teaches involve a section on this for at least an hour for
those coming into the Linux realm from a non *NIX environment. But
just "putting things" in places at random is ill advised. Again, see
the File System Hierarchy for an overall guide so that in the event a
third party that is familiar with Linux can better assist with trouble
shooting and resolution, as well as some package managers may think
something in /usr is not what it is and alter it.
FWIW.
--- Crawford
The Linux ETC Company
10121 Yates Court
Westminster, CO 80031 USA
voice: +1.303.604.2550
web: http://www.linux-etc.com
Roger A. Maduro
Nov 11, 2009, 11:51:17 AM11/11/09
to hard...@googlegroups.com
Javid,
I agree with Crawford. I used to switch to different Linux distros every few months but two years ago I tried Kubuntu and have been very happy with it and that's what I have been using. It's the same as Ubuntu but with the KDE front end. Latest version, 9.10 (Karmic Koala) is really solid. CentOS is also fine.
A couple of issues that have not been addressed. If you have hardware RAID, why are you using RAID 1 or RAID 10 (1+0)? If your hardware can support this you are much better off using RAID 5 or RAID 6. There is a really good write up on Wikipedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID>. Using RAID 6 you can lose up to two drives and not lose any data. Just plug a new drive in. I don't see why you would need two arrays. Perhaps a Virtual Machine would work better.
You still need to backup your data. I have started using SpiderOak online back up <www.spikderoak.com>. It's really cool. You can back up, sync, and share data/folders and it's only $10 a month for up to 100 Gigs. Data is encrypted before it is transmitted and it stored in an encrypted format. The most secure cloud back up out there (but don't lose the password...).
Roger
I agree with Crawford. I used to switch to different Linux distros every few months but two years ago I tried Kubuntu and have been very happy with it and that's what I have been using. It's the same as Ubuntu but with the KDE front end. Latest version, 9.10 (Karmic Koala) is really solid. CentOS is also fine.
A couple of issues that have not been addressed. If you have hardware RAID, why are you using RAID 1 or RAID 10 (1+0)? If your hardware can support this you are much better off using RAID 5 or RAID 6. There is a really good write up on Wikipedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID>. Using RAID 6 you can lose up to two drives and not lose any data. Just plug a new drive in. I don't see why you would need two arrays. Perhaps a Virtual Machine would work better.
You still need to backup your data. I have started using SpiderOak online back up <www.spikderoak.com>. It's really cool. You can back up, sync, and share data/folders and it's only $10 a month for up to 100 Gigs. Data is encrypted before it is transmitted and it stored in an encrypted format. The most secure cloud back up out there (but don't lose the password...).
Roger
Jonathan Tai
Nov 11, 2009, 12:31:53 PM11/11/09
to hard...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, 2009-11-11 at 08:51 -0800, Roger A. Maduro wrote:
> A couple of issues that have not been addressed. If you have hardware
> RAID, why are you using RAID 1 or RAID 10 (1+0)? If your hardware can
> support this you are much better off using RAID 5 or RAID 6.
> A couple of issues that have not been addressed. If you have hardware
> RAID, why are you using RAID 1 or RAID 10 (1+0)? If your hardware can
> support this you are much better off using RAID 5 or RAID 6.
While RAID 5 and 6 are cheaper in terms of the amount of storage you
need to buy vs. the amount of usable storage, the write performance is
not as good as RAID 10.
- Jon
javid
Nov 11, 2009, 12:51:00 PM11/11/09
to Hardhats
> similarities..I have been told by several people that Linux sees raid
> arrays in continuum so building more than one array may be a waste.
> arrays in continuum so building more than one array may be a waste.
Multiple arrays will appear as a single device is if you use LVM to
span the arrays. On some distros this is the default behavior, on
others it's not. If you manually create separate LVM's on the two
arrays, then they will stay separate.
That is exactly what i did with my previous install...i manually
span the arrays. On some distros this is the default behavior, on
others it's not. If you manually create separate LVM's on the two
arrays, then they will stay separate.
created 2 volume groups. setup one volume gp on raid one and other on
Raid 10. Then created /var /usr volumes on the volume group that was
on Raid 10.
My question now is ....if the file system on volume gp 1 ( with mostly
on it) gets corrupted, will it corrupt data on volgp 2 ( that has
mostly data). if it will do that , then it doesnt make sense to me to
create 2 raid arrays
-----------------------------
A couple of issues that have not been addressed. If you have hardware
RAID,
why are you using RAID 1 or RAID 10 (1+0)? If your hardware can
support this
you are much better off using RAID 5 or RAID 6. There is a really good
write
up on Wikipedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID>. Using RAID 6 you
can
lose up to two drives and not lose any data. Just plug a new drive in.
I
don't see why you would need two arrays. Perhaps a Virtual Machine
would
work better.
>>
database intensive work. ofcourse, I dont know if it would make any
practical difference to me if I went with RAID 5 or Raid6.
____________________
You still need to backup your data. I have started using SpiderOak
online
back up <www.spikderoak.com>. It's really cool. You can back up, sync,
and
share data/folders and it's only $10 a month for up to 100 Gigs. Data
is
encrypted before it is transmitted and it stored in an encrypted
format. The
most secure cloud back up out there (but don't lose the password...).
option as well. Will explore this option as well. i know you said
data is encrypted but is the backup service HIPPA certified.
--------------------------------------------------
Crawford,
I did put that link in my favorites. Will certainly go through it as
soon as I get a chance. it seems Ubuntu may be a good option for me
since it is Debian based which I have been using for last 2 years.
I cant afford any server down time since I use Asterisk for phones
with off-hours paging feature and hylafax. I am installing Alfresco as
we speak.
I am planning to install Heartbeart as soon as I get my other server
up and running.
thanks everyone
Javid
Roger A. Maduro
Nov 11, 2009, 12:54:05 PM11/11/09
to hard...@googlegroups.com
Jon,
You are right about the write performance but with RAID 1+0 you sacrifice redundancy. You lose a drive you most likely lose your data and have to rebuild. So the trade off is speed vs. safety. It seems to me that Javid was more interested in safety and the convenience of just replacing a damaged drive and not having to rebuild, reinstall, and reconfigure.
Roger
You are right about the write performance but with RAID 1+0 you sacrifice redundancy. You lose a drive you most likely lose your data and have to rebuild. So the trade off is speed vs. safety. It seems to me that Javid was more interested in safety and the convenience of just replacing a damaged drive and not having to rebuild, reinstall, and reconfigure.
Roger
Jonathan Tai
Nov 11, 2009, 1:08:37 PM11/11/09
to hard...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, 2009-11-11 at 09:54 -0800, Roger A. Maduro wrote:
> You are right about the write performance but with RAID 1+0 you
> sacrifice redundancy. You lose a drive you most likely lose your data
> and have to rebuild.
> You are right about the write performance but with RAID 1+0 you
> sacrifice redundancy. You lose a drive you most likely lose your data
> and have to rebuild.
RAID 10 is a stripe of mirrors, so you can lose a drive without losing
any data. RAID 0 is the level that provides no redundancy. Array
rebuilds are also faster with RAID 10 (vs. RAID 5) and do not degrade
read performance as much. You can actually lose 2 drives in a 4-drive
RAID 10, but not *any* two drives. (You can lose 1 drive from each
mirrored set.)
> So the trade off is speed vs. safety. It seems to me that Javid was
> more interested in safety and the convenience of just replacing a
> damaged drive and not having to rebuild, reinstall, and reconfigure.
RAID 5 can only suffer a single drive loss, so it has no advantage over
RAID 10 except for cost. RAID 6 is safer because you can lose any two
drives.
My point was not to argue for the use of one RAID vs. another, but just
to point out that there may be reasons to use something besides RAID 5.
- Jon
K.S. Bhaskar
Nov 11, 2009, 1:12:00 PM11/11/09
to hard...@googlegroups.com
IMHO, setting up a logical multi-site configuration of an application on
top of GT.M database replication gives much better protection of
continuity of business for the money.
Regards
-- Bhaskar
GT.M - Rock solid. Lightning fast. Secure. No compromises.
_____________
The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you.
_____________
top of GT.M database replication gives much better protection of
continuity of business for the money.
Regards
-- Bhaskar
GT.M - Rock solid. Lightning fast. Secure. No compromises.
The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you.
_____________
Crawford Rainwater
Nov 11, 2009, 1:19:08 PM11/11/09
to Hardhats
Comments below.
On Nov 11, 10:51 am, javid <jcalca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ____________________
>
> You still need to backup your data. I have started using SpiderOak
> online
> back up <www.spikderoak.com>. It's really cool. You can back up, sync,
> and
> share data/folders and it's only $10 a month for up to 100 Gigs. Data
> is
> encrypted before it is transmitted and it stored in an encrypted
> format. The
> most secure cloud back up out there (but don't lose the password...).
>
> I was thinking about going with Zamanda/amazon. this seems a good
> option as well. Will explore this option as well. i know you said
> data is encrypted but is the backup service HIPPA certified.
>
Zmanda can backup to the Amazon S3 as well as to various media. For a
small practice, tape would probably be best and simplest in all
honesty though. I cannot comment on the HIPAA side of using the
Amazon S3 though since that has been a debate of information being
stored by a third party group and who has access to such or not
legally in particular with email services being hosted by a third
party.
Linux ETC is also a Zmanda partner and solution provider for
reference. We are quite familiar with the Zmanda team as well.
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Crawford,
>
> I did put that link in my favorites. Will certainly go through it as
> soon as I get a chance. it seems Ubuntu may be a good option for me
> since it is Debian based which I have been using for last 2 years.
>
> I cant afford any server down time since I use Asterisk for phones
> with off-hours paging feature and hylafax. I am installing Alfresco as
> we speak.
>
> I am planning to install Heartbeart as soon as I get my other server
> up and running.
>
I would recommend putting VistA and Asterisk on separate physical
systems. Asterisk (depending on the number of users) can be an I/O
bottleneck if you are trying to run separate services such as VistA.
VistA + Alfresco though should be fine. There are also a wide variety
of monitoring packages in addition to Heartbeat for more thorough
monitoring of any/all systems, including some that are able to take
clients on other platforms (e.g., Windows, *NIX).
On Nov 11, 10:51 am, javid <jcalca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ____________________
>
> You still need to backup your data. I have started using SpiderOak
> online
> back up <www.spikderoak.com>. It's really cool. You can back up, sync,
> and
> share data/folders and it's only $10 a month for up to 100 Gigs. Data
> is
> encrypted before it is transmitted and it stored in an encrypted
> format. The
> most secure cloud back up out there (but don't lose the password...).
>
> I was thinking about going with Zamanda/amazon. this seems a good
> option as well. Will explore this option as well. i know you said
> data is encrypted but is the backup service HIPPA certified.
>
small practice, tape would probably be best and simplest in all
honesty though. I cannot comment on the HIPAA side of using the
Amazon S3 though since that has been a debate of information being
stored by a third party group and who has access to such or not
legally in particular with email services being hosted by a third
party.
Linux ETC is also a Zmanda partner and solution provider for
reference. We are quite familiar with the Zmanda team as well.
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Crawford,
>
> I did put that link in my favorites. Will certainly go through it as
> soon as I get a chance. it seems Ubuntu may be a good option for me
> since it is Debian based which I have been using for last 2 years.
>
> I cant afford any server down time since I use Asterisk for phones
> with off-hours paging feature and hylafax. I am installing Alfresco as
> we speak.
>
> I am planning to install Heartbeart as soon as I get my other server
> up and running.
>
systems. Asterisk (depending on the number of users) can be an I/O
bottleneck if you are trying to run separate services such as VistA.
VistA + Alfresco though should be fine. There are also a wide variety
of monitoring packages in addition to Heartbeat for more thorough
monitoring of any/all systems, including some that are able to take
clients on other platforms (e.g., Windows, *NIX).
Roger A. Maduro
Nov 11, 2009, 2:01:31 PM11/11/09
to hard...@googlegroups.com
Jon,
In the past six years I have dealt with 12 RAID systems, 3 RAID 1, 3 RAID 1+0, 5 RAID 5, and one RAID 6 (the most recent one). I personally built four of these (RAID 1 and RAID 5). Almost all of them have lost at least one drive along the way. The RAID 1 and RAID 5 systems kept trucking and just had to take a new drive. All the RAID 1+0 systems had to be rebuilt and there was data loss in every case. Based on extensive discussions with Linux techies that know a heck of a lot more than me it turns out that RAID 1+0 provides fantastic performance but is very complex to implement. You need a really good quality RAID controller (such as 3Ware). I don't know what Javid has but just based on personal experience I can't recommend RAID 1+0 unless there is a compelling reason for the performance and the willingness to take the risk. Thus I'd rather drive an SUV than a Ferrari. I guess that dates me...
Roger
In the past six years I have dealt with 12 RAID systems, 3 RAID 1, 3 RAID 1+0, 5 RAID 5, and one RAID 6 (the most recent one). I personally built four of these (RAID 1 and RAID 5). Almost all of them have lost at least one drive along the way. The RAID 1 and RAID 5 systems kept trucking and just had to take a new drive. All the RAID 1+0 systems had to be rebuilt and there was data loss in every case. Based on extensive discussions with Linux techies that know a heck of a lot more than me it turns out that RAID 1+0 provides fantastic performance but is very complex to implement. You need a really good quality RAID controller (such as 3Ware). I don't know what Javid has but just based on personal experience I can't recommend RAID 1+0 unless there is a compelling reason for the performance and the willingness to take the risk. Thus I'd rather drive an SUV than a Ferrari. I guess that dates me...
Roger
Ben Mehling
Nov 11, 2009, 2:37:41 PM11/11/09
to hard...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Roger A. Maduro <rama...@gmail.com> wrote:
> had to take a new drive. All the RAID 1+0 systems had to be rebuilt and
> there was data loss in every case. Based on extensive discussions with Linux
> techies that know a heck of a lot more than me it turns out that RAID 1+0
> provides fantastic performance but is very complex to implement. You need a
> really good quality RAID controller (such as 3Ware).
Do not confuse RAID specifications with real-world implementation issues. I
do not know about your specific circumstances.
RAID 1+0 is redundant. It is widely used. More information is
available here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID (in the "Nested
(hybrid) RAID" section).
- Ben
Butch
Nov 12, 2009, 12:19:03 AM11/12/09
to Hardhats
I have seen very few cases where a RAID 10 resulted in data loss,
without both drives in a stripe failing. Although RAID 0+1 (bad idea
all around) you are guaranteed data loss.
Regardless of the RAID level you go with, if hot spares are an option
use them. They will react much faster than you can, and the array
will begin rebuilding before you are even aware there is a problem.
Regarding the post about corruption on one array corrupting the
other. If the data corruption is being caused by bad RAM, cosmic
rays, (yes I'm serious), or some other electromagnetic distortion,
then yes both arrays will likely be corrupted. Under normal operating
circumstances, corruption on one array should not affect another.
--
Butch
On Nov 11, 2:37 pm, Ben Mehling <ben.mehl...@medsphere.com> wrote:
without both drives in a stripe failing. Although RAID 0+1 (bad idea
all around) you are guaranteed data loss.
Regardless of the RAID level you go with, if hot spares are an option
use them. They will react much faster than you can, and the array
will begin rebuilding before you are even aware there is a problem.
Regarding the post about corruption on one array corrupting the
other. If the data corruption is being caused by bad RAM, cosmic
rays, (yes I'm serious), or some other electromagnetic distortion,
then yes both arrays will likely be corrupted. Under normal operating
circumstances, corruption on one array should not affect another.
--
Butch
On Nov 11, 2:37 pm, Ben Mehling <ben.mehl...@medsphere.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Roger A. Maduro <ramad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > had to take a new drive. All the RAID 1+0 systems had to be rebuilt and
> > there was data loss in every case. Based on extensive discussions with Linux
> > techies that know a heck of a lot more than me it turns out that RAID 1+0
> > provides fantastic performance but is very complex to implement. You need a
> > really good quality RAID controller (such as 3Ware).
>
> Do not confuse RAID specifications with real-world implementation issues. I
> do not know about your specific circumstances.
>
> RAID 1+0 is redundant. It is widely used. More information is
> available here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID(in the "Nested
>
> > had to take a new drive. All the RAID 1+0 systems had to be rebuilt and
> > there was data loss in every case. Based on extensive discussions with Linux
> > techies that know a heck of a lot more than me it turns out that RAID 1+0
> > provides fantastic performance but is very complex to implement. You need a
> > really good quality RAID controller (such as 3Ware).
>
> Do not confuse RAID specifications with real-world implementation issues. I
> do not know about your specific circumstances.
>
> RAID 1+0 is redundant. It is widely used. More information is
K.S. Bhaskar
Nov 12, 2009, 9:24:35 AM11/12/09
to hard...@googlegroups.com
GT.M - Rock solid. Lightning fast. Secure. No compromises.
On 11/12/2009 12:19 AM, Butch wrote:
> I have seen very few cases where a RAID 10 resulted in data loss,
> without both drives in a stripe failing. Although RAID 0+1 (bad idea
> all around) you are guaranteed data loss.
>
> Regardless of the RAID level you go with, if hot spares are an option
> use them. They will react much faster than you can, and the array
> will begin rebuilding before you are even aware there is a problem.
>
> Regarding the post about corruption on one array corrupting the
> other. If the data corruption is being caused by bad RAM, cosmic
> rays, (yes I'm serious), or some other electromagnetic distortion,
> then yes both arrays will likely be corrupted. Under normal operating
> circumstances, corruption on one array should not affect another.
[KSB] That's why I recommend RAM with at least parity checking for
> I have seen very few cases where a RAID 10 resulted in data loss,
> without both drives in a stripe failing. Although RAID 0+1 (bad idea
> all around) you are guaranteed data loss.
>
> Regardless of the RAID level you go with, if hot spares are an option
> use them. They will react much faster than you can, and the array
> will begin rebuilding before you are even aware there is a problem.
>
> Regarding the post about corruption on one array corrupting the
> other. If the data corruption is being caused by bad RAM, cosmic
> rays, (yes I'm serious), or some other electromagnetic distortion,
> then yes both arrays will likely be corrupted. Under normal operating
> circumstances, corruption on one array should not affect another.
applications where you care about the data. ECC RAM is even better.
Also, at the performance levels most people in this group are concerned
about, RAID 1 (mirroring) is important - RAID 0 (striping is not).
Considering disk prices today, and the disk capacities that most people
in this group are concerned about, more efficient redundancy (such as
RAID 5) are not important. Just my opinion.
Mike, I'm glad you implemented software RAID!
Regards
-- Bhaskar
Butch
Nov 12, 2009, 4:46:28 PM11/12/09
to Hardhats
I agree, ECC RAM is a must in a production server. Although bad RAM
is bad RAM, and a few flipped bits here and there can really mess up a
data store. Generally, when a server supports ECC RAM, it can also
disable either areas of the chip that have gone bad, or it can disable
the chip completely, which (ideally) prevents such errors.
Not all servers support this, but I think actual servers, (as opposed
to re purposed desktops) from HP, Dell, Sun and IBM etc., all come
equipped with ECC and wont work with any other type of RAM.
I also agree that unless you really have a good reason to use RAID
5/6, don't use it. Chances are, that if your in a situation that
truly warrants RAID 5/6, you wont have to ask, you will know. As
Bhaskar noted, most of the people in this group, aren't going to need
anything more than RAID 1.
Using striping, with mirrors, can be beneficial if done right, but
it's really a case of not worth the effort. If you have extra disks,
that you would normally use in a stripe, save it for a hot spare.
Trust me, hot spares are WELL worth the effort, and well worth the
investment.
This point cannot be stressed enough! Make sure you have tested, and
known good backups, in case the entire array fails. Backups are an
art, but it's an art that everyone who cares about their data needs to
be familiar with.
--
Butch
is bad RAM, and a few flipped bits here and there can really mess up a
data store. Generally, when a server supports ECC RAM, it can also
disable either areas of the chip that have gone bad, or it can disable
the chip completely, which (ideally) prevents such errors.
Not all servers support this, but I think actual servers, (as opposed
to re purposed desktops) from HP, Dell, Sun and IBM etc., all come
equipped with ECC and wont work with any other type of RAM.
I also agree that unless you really have a good reason to use RAID
5/6, don't use it. Chances are, that if your in a situation that
truly warrants RAID 5/6, you wont have to ask, you will know. As
Bhaskar noted, most of the people in this group, aren't going to need
anything more than RAID 1.
Using striping, with mirrors, can be beneficial if done right, but
it's really a case of not worth the effort. If you have extra disks,
that you would normally use in a stripe, save it for a hot spare.
Trust me, hot spares are WELL worth the effort, and well worth the
investment.
This point cannot be stressed enough! Make sure you have tested, and
known good backups, in case the entire array fails. Backups are an
art, but it's an art that everyone who cares about their data needs to
be familiar with.
--
Butch
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages