Re: [Dovecot] Howto add another disk storage
On 7/8/2012 5:16 PM, Matthias-Christian Ott wrote:
On 2012-07-08 23:29, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 7/8/2012 8:27 AM, Patrick Domack wrote:
Quoting Wojciech Puchar wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl:
I think there are optimal situations where any configuration looks good . . How often can a real-world disk actually deliver the 6Gbs when only a minority of disk reads are long sequential runs on the platters? none of hard drives can saturate 1.5Gb/s
There are many disks out that do 150-200MB/sec, easily exceeding 1.5gb/s speeds.
There are a few SAS drives that can saturate a 150MB/s link, such as the Seagate Cheetah 15k.7, which can sustain 204MB/s streaming read on the outer tracks.
But, again, streaming rate is irrelevant to mail storage. What matters is random seek latency. And the faster the spindle, the lower the latency. Thus 15k Seagate SAS drives are excellent candidates for mail store duty, as are any 10k or 15k drives.
This is simply not true. SATA SSDs (~0,66 €/GB) are as expensive as the 15k Seagate SAS HDDs (0,63 €/GB), but definitely faster.
First, this sub discussion in this thread has been dealing strictly with mechanical storage, and that was intentional.
Now you've injected solid state storage, and in the process you first disagreed with my statement, then agreed with it. Apparently you didn't realize you did so. Would you please clarify what I stated that is "simply not true"? You comment WRT SSD doesn't prove anything I said to be untrue. Quite the contrary, you reinforced my statements.
-- Stan
disagreed with my statement, then agreed with it. Apparently you didn't realize you did so. Would you please clarify what I stated that is "simply not true"? You comment WRT SSD doesn't prove anything I said to be untrue. Quite the contrary, you reinforced my statements.
Actually the only storage i use are mainstream SATA drives and SSDs. first for size, low price and reliability, second (if needed) for speed.
Am 09.07.2012 07:48, schrieb Wojciech Puchar:
disagreed with my statement, then agreed with it. Apparently you didn't realize you did so. Would you please clarify what I stated that is "simply not true"? You comment WRT SSD doesn't prove anything I said to be untrue. Quite the contrary, you reinforced my statements.
Actually the only storage i use are mainstream SATA drives
ouch - that said and your offlist discussion why SAN storages are crap for you gives a picture - nobody, really nobody is using SATA for any production-storage
Am 09.07.2012 10:17, schrieb Reindl Harald:
Am 09.07.2012 07:48, schrieb Wojciech Puchar:
disagreed with my statement, then agreed with it. Apparently you didn't realize you did so. Would you please clarify what I stated that is "simply not true"? You comment WRT SSD doesn't prove anything I said to be untrue. Quite the contrary, you reinforced my statements.
Actually the only storage i use are mainstream SATA drives
ouch - that said and your offlist discussion why SAN storages are crap for you gives a picture - nobody, really nobody is using SATA for any production-storage
Hi, sorry SATA is running fine here, by the way please show tec detail measures about filesystems , different storages, hardware envolved and tec evidence for your discusions related to dovecot.
I know this is a difficult theme, and test results may controversial, but it shouldnt be a point for hot flames so it may be better, doing it offlist.
Meanwhile why dont just post real working storage/filesystems examples with big used dovecot setups, which may help everybody, perhaps in the wiki
After all we decide doing a big test setup to clear all this questions.
-- Best Regards MfG Robert Schetterer
On 9 Jul 2012, at 10:41, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
Many people just want to be proud, or want to make things expensive so their clients are proud. but not always it's like that.
You go on a bit about "pride in complexity" . . What you fail to understand is that many highly intelligent, experienced, very able engineers build systems that are as complex and as large as they _need to be_ and just because you don't deal with such large systems doesn't make everyone else wrong. (Okay, I know, some people are proud, and some people do make bad decisions about large complex systems -- but you make the mistake of assuming everyone does.)
Just my 0.02 -- hope it helps.
Seem some people have never heard of "keep it simple, stupid" or "less is more" ... sounds like a few people here are falsely propping up their worth to their employers, making unnecessary BS to justify their own existence.
My experience of over 20 years of this industry easily shows that those who try to make complex networks _always_ have far higher fail rates than those that keep it simple, nearly never have any problems, and when they do its because the powers failed, the gennies didnt kick in and UPS's died before engineers got the gennies going. I've also seen most networks that use SAN's have a far more problems than those using NAS's think about using a general server as a NAS.
- providing you use decent NAS gear like EMC or Netapp :) Don't evne
On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 10:46 +0100, J E Lyon wrote:
On 9 Jul 2012, at 10:41, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
Many people just want to be proud, or want to make things expensive so their clients are proud. but not always it's like that.
You go on a bit about "pride in complexity" . . What you fail to understand is that many highly intelligent, experienced, very able engineers build systems that are as complex and as large as they _need to be_ and just because you don't deal with such large systems doesn't make everyone else wrong. (Okay, I know, some people are proud, and some people do make bad decisions about large complex systems -- but you make the mistake of assuming everyone does.)
Just my 0.02 -- hope it helps.
what you do not understand is that a proper SAN is NOT an complex setup, it is in many cases a simpler one because you have TWO controllers, disks with DUAL channel and a proper RAID level in ONE device
to built all this redundancy at your own is a much complexer software-setup and you can be pretty sure taht as long you are not dealing night and day with storage/Failover-setups the people designing a SAN have much more expierience what the are doing
Am 09.07.2012 12:01, schrieb Noel Butler:
Seem some people have never heard of "keep it simple, stupid" or "less is more" ... sounds like a few people here are falsely propping up their worth to their employers, making unnecessary BS to justify their own existence.
My experience of over 20 years of this industry easily shows that those who try to make complex networks _always_ have far higher fail rates than those that keep it simple, nearly never have any problems, and when they do its because the powers failed, the gennies didnt kick in and UPS's died before engineers got the gennies going. I've also seen most networks that use SAN's have a far more problems than those using NAS's think about using a general server as a NAS.
- providing you use decent NAS gear like EMC or Netapp :) Don't evne
On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 10:46 +0100, J E Lyon wrote:
On 9 Jul 2012, at 10:41, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
Many people just want to be proud, or want to make things expensive so their clients are proud. but not always it's like that.
You go on a bit about "pride in complexity" . . What you fail to understand is that many highly intelligent, experienced, very able engineers build systems that are as complex and as large as they _need to be_ and just because you don't deal with such large systems doesn't make everyone else wrong. (Okay, I know, some people are proud, and some people do make bad decisions about large complex systems -- but you make the mistake of assuming everyone does.)
Just my 0.02 -- hope it helps.
--
Reindl Harald the lounge interactive design GmbH A-1060 Vienna, Hofmühlgasse 17 CTO / CISO / Software-Development p: +43 (1) 595 3999 33, m: +43 (676) 40 221 40 icq: 154546673, http://www.thelounge.net/
On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 12:10 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
what you do not understand is that a proper SAN is NOT an complex setup, it is in many cases a simpler one because you have TWO controllers, disks with DUAL channel and a proper RAID level in ONE device
to built all this redundancy at your own is a much complexer software-setup and you can be pretty sure taht as long you are not dealing night and day with storage/Failover-setups the people designing a SAN have much more expierience what the are doing
Is not my experience with some pretty large ISP's, SAN might have its place for web, but not in any mail world I'm responsible for, stress testing has shown me no SAN speed difference of NAS for mail (yes this may differ is an office world, but not when dealing with the size of emails) and I sure as hell wont pay the extra gazillion these vendors want for the SAN gear.
Many people just want to be proud, or want to make things expensive so their clients are proud. but not always it's like that.
You go on a bit about "pride in complexity" . . What you fail to understand is that many highly intelligent, experienced, very able engineers build systems that are as complex and as large as they _need to be_ and just because you don't deal with such large systems doesn't make everyone else wrong. (Okay, I know, some people are proud, and some people do make bad decisions about large complex systems -- but you make the mistake of assuming everyone does.)
there are lots of skilled engineers here on that forum.
But certainly not the ones that babble about storage, SANs etc.. just because they sell them, have profits from selling them or are just that uneducated.
The wording they use ("everyone do this", "because it is enterprise") just proves that most of them are people that should not even touch a computer.
Sadly that's majority of "specialists" nowadays.
Am 09.07.2012 12:14, schrieb Wojciech Puchar:
there are lots of skilled engineers here on that forum.
But certainly not the ones that babble about storage, SANs etc.. just because they sell them, have profits from selling them or are just that uneducated.
please stop this bullshit, especially OFF-LIST i do not sell them and i am not uneducated
The wording they use ("everyone do this", "because it is enterprise") just proves that most of them are people that should not even touch a computer
look in the mirror after your off-list explanations why are you re-invent the wheel and that you are not need ONLINE migration of running servers maybe you are the one who sould even not touch a computer
please stop this bullshit, especially OFF-LIST
Fortunately you do not decide about it.
i do not sell them and i am not uneducated
The wording they use ("everyone do this", "because it is enterprise") just proves that most of them are people that should not even touch a computer
look in the mirror after your off-list explanations why
i am talking both about your off-list and on-list conversation in which you prove all your "knowledge" is advert based.
Words like "mainstream", "enterprise", etc. are just marketing words, and should not be used in technical discussion having no meaning. Using them prooves lack of real knowledge, and that's what you exactly did.
Saying to me - a regular massive user of cheap ATA/SATA drive in production since 14 years - that "nobody" use them in production is just funny!
But OK - you at least plan disaster recovery. Rare event. Your clients after paying huge money to get high complexity and low performance, AT LEAST will not loose data.
Am 09.07.2012 12:37, schrieb Wojciech Puchar:
look in the mirror after your off-list explanations why
i am talking both about your off-list and on-list conversation in which you prove all your "knowledge" is advert based.
you have no idea about my knowledge impossible becaus i have no time to explain you only a little part
Words like "mainstream", "enterprise", etc. are just marketing words, and should not be used in technical discussion having no meaning. Using them prooves lack of real knowledge, and that's what you exactly did.
how foolish can anybody be for such poor argumentation
Saying to me - a regular massive user of cheap ATA/SATA drive in production since 14 years - that "nobody" use them in production is just funny!
luck is no base for a infrastructure your life depends
But OK - you at least plan disaster recovery. Rare event. Your clients after paying huge money to get high complexity and low performance, AT LEAST will not loose data.
are you completly silly?
who let's you imagine that my clients pay "huge money" because SAN?
the level of complexity has not to interest any client said that: "low performance" is bullshit stop qulify things you do not know
as long our webservers are generating cms-contents in around 0.011 seconds per request you are really not in the position to qualify anybodys performance
as long as the following are your OFF-LIST answers you better shut up here!
-------- Original-Nachricht -------- Betreff: Re: [Dovecot] Howto add another disk storage Datum: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 11:43:11 +0200 (CEST) Von: Wojciech Puchar wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl An: Reindl Harald h.reindl@thelounge.net
repeat it twice. repeat in 10 times. just for sure as maybe some of your clients will find out you are just another moron.
Please, guys, lets put an end to this topic, I think everyone has had their say, and everyone is capable of making up their own mind about what type of storage to use - the noise is starting to get irritating.
On 2012-07-09 6:44 AM, Reindl Harald h.reindl@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 09.07.2012 12:37, schrieb Wojciech Puchar:
look in the mirror after your off-list explanations why
i am talking both about your off-list and on-list conversation in which you prove all your "knowledge" is advert based.
you have no idea about my knowledge impossible becaus i have no time to explain you only a little part
Words like "mainstream", "enterprise", etc. are just marketing words, and should not be used in technical discussion having no meaning. Using them prooves lack of real knowledge, and that's what you exactly did.
how foolish can anybody be for such poor argumentation
Saying to me - a regular massive user of cheap ATA/SATA drive in production since 14 years - that "nobody" use them in production is just funny!
luck is no base for a infrastructure your life depends
But OK - you at least plan disaster recovery. Rare event. Your clients after paying huge money to get high complexity and low performance, AT LEAST will not loose data.
are you completly silly?
who let's you imagine that my clients pay "huge money" because SAN?
the level of complexity has not to interest any client said that: "low performance" is bullshit stop qulify things you do not know
as long our webservers are generating cms-contents in around 0.011 seconds per request you are really not in the position to qualify anybodys performance
as long as the following are your OFF-LIST answers you better shut up here!
-------- Original-Nachricht -------- Betreff: Re: [Dovecot] Howto add another disk storage Datum: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 11:43:11 +0200 (CEST) Von: Wojciech Pucharwojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl An: Reindl Haraldh.reindl@thelounge.net
repeat it twice. repeat in 10 times. just for sure as maybe some of your clients will find out you are just another moron.
--
Best regards,
Charles Marcus I.T. Director Media Brokers International, Inc. 678.514.6200 x224 | 678.514.6299 fax
Am 09.07.2012 11:41, schrieb Wojciech Puchar:
using SATA for any production-storage
Hi, sorry SATA is running fine here,
as well here.
Many people just want to be proud, or want to make things expensive so their clients are proud. but not always it's like that.
oh yeah show me the SATA drives with dual-channel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_Attached_SCSI Dual ports allowing redundant paths
in the case of a drive-failure all your cheapiness will strike back
what you do not realize that expensive hardware is NOTHING to be proud of having a business means things have to run 365 days without downtimes and as redundant as possible especially in failure cases
On 7/9/2012 3:17 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 09.07.2012 07:48, schrieb Wojciech Puchar:
disagreed with my statement, then agreed with it. Apparently you didn't realize you did so. Would you please clarify what I stated that is "simply not true"? You comment WRT SSD doesn't prove anything I said to be untrue. Quite the contrary, you reinforced my statements.
Actually the only storage i use are mainstream SATA drives
ouch - that said and your offlist discussion why SAN storages are crap for you gives a picture - nobody, really nobody is using SATA for any production-storage
That's simply not true Reindl.
SATA drives are being used very widely in production today, and outnumber SAS deployments by a very wide margin. For instance, web servers, counting in the 10s of millions worldwide, use SATA drives exclusively, where RAM is critical for performance, not disk. You won't find SAS drives in web farms simply due to cost.
Everyone doing D2D backup and nearline storage is using SATA today. And most everyone, from large enterprises, to K-12 schools, to SOHOs, use SATA drives in front line file servers.
SAS is found today almost exclusively in high volume transactional servers such as mail spools, mail stores, databases, VM image storage, and applications that need higher reliability, such as medical imaging systems, etc.
-- Stan
Am 09.07.2012 21:29, schrieb Stan Hoeppner:
On 7/9/2012 3:17 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 09.07.2012 07:48, schrieb Wojciech Puchar:
disagreed with my statement, then agreed with it. Apparently you didn't realize you did so. Would you please clarify what I stated that is "simply not true"? You comment WRT SSD doesn't prove anything I said to be untrue. Quite the contrary, you reinforced my statements.
Actually the only storage i use are mainstream SATA drives
ouch - that said and your offlist discussion why SAN storages are crap for you gives a picture - nobody, really nobody is using SATA for any production-storage
That's simply not true Reindl.
SATA drives are being used very widely in production today, and outnumber SAS deployments by a very wide margin.
for SOHO with no public services, yes
SAS is found today almost exclusively in high volume transactional servers such as mail spools, mail stores, databases, VM image storage, and applications that need higher reliability, such as medical imaging systems, etc
well, we are speaking about mail spools and mail storages here i thought
additionally my mail storage lives on virtual machines as any other services started some years ago and finsihed 2010 moving the last bare-metal server to VM infrastructzre
in these environments you find near to zero SATA only few people these does are doing bare metal installs in days where hardware supported virtaliziation has nearly zero overhead
Moi. Hi there.
Wouldn't it be possible to either stop this madness of silly people trying to teach other maillist users this storage nonsense ? (Religion) or to tell how to unsubscribe asap ?
My inbox is filling up with this to me, and maybe other on the dovecot list, completely out of the list scope nonsense.
Regards Solo
----- Original meddelelse -----
Fra: Reindl Harald h.reindl@thelounge.net Til: dovecot@dovecot.org Dato: Man, 09. jul 2012 21:41 Emne: Re: [Dovecot] Howto add another disk storage
Am 09.07.2012 21:29, schrieb Stan Hoeppner:
On 7/9/2012 3:17 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 09.07.2012 07:48, schrieb Wojciech Puchar:
disagreed with my statement, then agreed with it. Apparently you
didn't
realize you did so. Would you please clarify what I stated that is "simply not true"? You comment WRT SSD doesn't prove anything I said to be untrue. Quite the contrary, you reinforced my statements.
Actually the only storage i use are mainstream SATA drives
ouch - that said and your offlist discussion why SAN storages are crap for you gives a picture - nobody, really nobody is using SATA for any production-storage
That's simply not true Reindl.
SATA drives are being used very widely in production today, and outnumber SAS deployments by a very wide margin.
for SOHO with no public services, yes
SAS is found today almost exclusively in high volume transactional servers such as mail spools, mail stores, databases, VM image storage, and applications that need higher reliability, such as medical imaging systems, etc
well, we are speaking about mail spools and mail storages here i thought
additionally my mail storage lives on virtual machines as any other services started some years ago and finsihed 2010 moving the last bare-metal server to VM infrastructzre
in these environments you find near to zero SATA only few people these does are doing bare metal installs in days where hardware supported virtaliziation has nearly zero overhead
Am 09.07.2012 22:42, schrieb solo@privat.dk:
Moi. Hi there.
Wouldn't it be possible to either stop this madness of silly people trying to teach other maillist users this storage nonsense ? (Religion) or to tell how to unsubscribe asap ?
My inbox is filling up with this to me, and maybe other on the dovecot list, completely out of the list scope nonsense.
Agreed. Please continue the SAS-SATA fight and the SAN-NAS fight somewhere else.
Cheers JC
On 7/9/2012 2:41 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 09.07.2012 21:29, schrieb Stan Hoeppner:
On 7/9/2012 3:17 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 09.07.2012 07:48, schrieb Wojciech Puchar:
disagreed with my statement, then agreed with it. Apparently you didn't realize you did so. Would you please clarify what I stated that is "simply not true"? You comment WRT SSD doesn't prove anything I said to be untrue. Quite the contrary, you reinforced my statements.
Actually the only storage i use are mainstream SATA drives
ouch - that said and your offlist discussion why SAN storages are crap for you gives a picture - nobody, really nobody is using SATA for any production-storage
That's simply not true Reindl.
SATA drives are being used very widely in production today, and outnumber SAS deployments by a very wide margin.
for SOHO with no public services, yes
Google has more public facing services, servers, than anyone, and Google uses only SATA drives, zero SAS. They also host more mail spools and mailboxes than anyone. Again, all on SATA drives.
Now I'm sure you'll tell us why Google doesn't count for some reason in this discussion, why their use of SATA isn't relevant somehow.
-- Stan
Am 10.07.2012 05:59, schrieb Stan Hoeppner:
That's simply not true Reindl.
SATA drives are being used very widely in production today, and outnumber SAS deployments by a very wide margin.
for SOHO with no public services, yes
Google has more public facing services, servers, than anyone, and Google uses only SATA drives, zero SAS. They also host more mail spools and mailboxes than anyone. Again, all on SATA drives.
Now I'm sure you'll tell us why Google doesn't count for some reason in this discussion, why their use of SATA isn't relevant somehow
DAMNED: why do you restart this thread again after enough mails it shopuld be stopped?
finally it does not botehr me which hardware-crap who is using as long mine critical one are only 14 SAS disks for a lot of virtual servers, all with dual channel, redundant and hotplug-able
however:
because google generally has the strategy to use cheap hardware in huge masses with very high redundancy while SAS stands for high ability (dual channel ports) with higher pricses but less hardware at all
Am 09.07.2012 21:41, schrieb Reindl Harald:
in these environments you find near to zero SATA only few people these does are doing bare metal installs in days where hardware supported virtaliziation has nearly zero overhead
Hi Harald, that simply not true i have thousends of mailbox users on sata stores since years ,without any problem, you should learn that things that might fit at your place, are not the ultimate answer to everything
-- Best Regards MfG Robert Schetterer
Le 10/07/2012 08:13, Robert Schetterer a écrit :
in these environments you find near to zero SATA only few people these does are doing bare metal installs in days where hardware supported virtaliziation has nearly zero overhead Hi Harald, that simply not true i have thousends of mailbox users on sata stores since years ,without any problem, you should learn that
Am 09.07.2012 21:41, schrieb Reindl Harald: things that might fit at your place, are not the ultimate answer to everything
Would it be possible to close this thread from Dovecot mailing-list ?
Please setup mailing-lists pros-cons-Reindl or pros-cons-sata instead
Thank you very much
Am 09.07.2012 21:29, schrieb Stan Hoeppner:
SAS is found today almost exclusively in high volume transactional servers such as mail spools, mail stores, databases, VM image storage, and applications that need higher reliability, such as medical imaging systems, etc.
and SAS may not be faster always, it deeply depends on motherboard ,bios versions, drivers, date of release, storage modell etc
SAS could be faster but it must not everytime and everywhere
IMAP and specially mailserver storages may have other needs as other servertypes, so it depends on general parameters which you like to goal, parameters i.e may your budget number of mailboxes, size of mailboxes, number of parallel users, mailbox type, cluster filesystem ,loadbalancing setup soft/hardware raid/hardware, use drbd and/or san/nas specialized hardware etc
so i found very interesting info in this thread , but at the end it is not very helpfull to decide what to use in real world mailsetups this is always a local decision by local circumstances
there are no general easy answers for this theme, that fit simply all and as in real life , dont think what fits best to you , ist the best for others
-- Best Regards MfG Robert Schetterer
participants (11)
-
Charles Marcus
-
Frank Bonnet
-
J E Lyon
-
Jakob Curdes
-
Noel Butler
-
Reindl Harald
-
Robert Schetterer
-
solo＠privat.dk
-
Stan Hoeppner
-
Timo Sirainen
-
Wojciech Puchar