[girasquid]

Hello, all.

I'm currently in the process of setting up and configuring a new, dedicated Ubuntu Server to use for a new project. I am looking to get this server as close to or better than a commercial dedicated server in terms of redundancy and backup options. However, I'm also cheap.

With that in mind, this is what I've figured out as a possible server configuration, and I would like to ask the Dreamincode community for feedback:

Processor: AMD Athlon 64 X2(dual-core), 2.2GHz
RAM: 1GB DDR2
Drives: 3 500GB in software RAID 5, 1 500GB for bootables + backups, 1 500GB spare for failures

I've been told that RAID 5 is a good idea because by using hot-swappable drives, I'll be able to swap drives in and out of the array at any time that I need to, without powering down the machine - thus reducing downtime in the event of a failure.

While I've had various recommendations on using hardware RAID 5 vs. software RAID 5, I have decided to go with software RAID 5 because I can't afford a hardware RAID controller.

Does anyone with more experience setting up servers have any alternate considerations or recommendations? I considered using EC2 instead of a dedicated server, but realized that the costs wouldn't justify my usage.

Thanks,
Girasquid

Edit: in terms of actual configuration, I was thinking of either using Xen to virtualize and separate my Apache and MySQL instances so that I had 4 virtual machines running, or alternately just keeping it all on the same box - if anyone has recommendations as to what to do there, that'd be great too.

This post has been edited by girasquid: 07 July 2008 - 09:34 AM

[no2pencil]

girasquid, on 7 Jul, 2008 - 11:38 AM, said:

Processor: AMD Athlon 64 X2(dual-core), 2.2GHz
RAM: 1GB DDR2
Drives: 3 500GB in software RAID 5, 1 500GB for bootables + backups, 1 500GB spare for failures

Cheap? I'm running off 2 Sun X1 servers (1gb ram 500 mhz cpu) & a Dell Power Edge 350 (PIII 1 ghz 512mb ram) with an attached D1000 storage (8 x 18gb)

girasquid, on 7 Jul, 2008 - 11:38 AM, said:

I've been told that RAID 5 is a good idea because by using hot-swappable drives

Since you are going to run software Raid through the OS, then you had better make sure you purchase hot swappable hardware! I saw a really good presentation that went over the pros & cons of using Hardware vs Software Raid. Turns out, if your server goes down, you could be SOL & end up paying big bucks to get the exact mother board to match your Hardware Raid setup. There were other items on the subject, but it was a while ago. Sorry I couldn't remember much else.

Check out LVM under Linux, as it works very well with Raid setups.

girasquid, on 7 Jul, 2008 - 11:38 AM, said:

Does anyone with more experience setting up servers have any alternate considerations or recommendations?

My main suggest would be to discourage using a GUI Linux such as Ubuntu. If you are wanting to run a server (especially a commercial class server) then use a real server OS. Not something designed for Mom & Pop desktops. But I guess, do what you like

[girasquid]

I don't know if you know this, no2 - but Ubuntu does come with a server flavor. Is that what you're referring to, or were you unaware?

What exactly do you mean by hot swappable hardware? The drives are all going to be SATA(hot swappable), but I'm not sure what else could be hot swappable.

[no2pencil]

girasquid, on 8 Jul, 2008 - 12:01 AM, said:

I don't know if you know this, no2 - but Ubuntu does come with a server flavor. Is that what you're referring to, or were you unaware?

Yes, I believe it's Kunubuntu, or Xubuntu, or something similar. I don't know if they provide a GUI-less setup.

girasquid, on 8 Jul, 2008 - 12:01 AM, said:

What exactly do you mean by hot swappable hardware? The drives are all going to be SATA(hot swappable), but I'm not sure what else could be hot swappable.

I might be showing my age here, but some SCSI devices are hot swappable, some are not, & I don't think that any IDE devices are. I for one would stay away from using SATA for RAID. It's my experience that SATA devices are intended for Desktop machines & usually get eaten alive by the amount of processing strain applied to them through RAID. I know you probably wonder what I'm on, but I've heard a few horror stories by reputable sources. There is a reason why SATA drives are more inexpensive than SCSI. Although it is too bad, because SATA drives are so huge.

** Edit ** One thing I remember in the LVM presentation was that on a Hardware Raid setup, a lot of your seek time is easier on the SCSI drives because some of it can be performed within the cache of the hardware controller card, because has a larger cashing limit than with SATA drives & Software Raid, because every seek request is sent to the hardware itself. One more reason why the RAID is more taxing on the SATA hardware.

[girasquid]

No2, I hate to point it out again - but there actually is a GUI-less Ubuntu Server - just ubuntu, not Kubuntu or Xubuntu or anything like that - link.

Are you sure that it's SATA drives have the issue? Everyone else that I've talked to has strongly recommended SATA drives, as opposed to anything else - although I can confirm that no one has recommended IDE at all(they aren't hot swappable at all).

This post has been edited by girasquid: 07 July 2008 - 10:09 PM

[marcells23]

SATA drives should be fine.. it is true they might not last as long but if its hot swappable, its pretty much worth it because replacing it is not as expensive as scsi and you get the benefit of a larger hard drive for less money..