Slashdot Mirror
University Chooses Apple RAID for Linux Cluster
An anonymous reader writes "A Linux World article describes how Swinburne University chose Apple's Xserve RAID
to add storage to it's Dell linux cluster, as
it was the cheapest solution. Apple was
sceptical about its RAID system working with Linux, but the system was up and running in 15 minutes."
"According to Bailes, the centre records 13TB of data per day, which gets processed in real time down to 30GB and then compressed further to 3KB."
OK, can someone to explain to me that either yes, there is a lot of redundant data that can have crazy-good compression rates, or that no, this quote is wrong...
Fix the spelling.
Those things are soooo yummy, if I had a million dollars, some of it would go to an xserve array, just for fun, it'd be like the equivalent of some movie star buying like, some diamond coffee table or something "oh haha, and yeah that's my Xserve over there, oh no I don't really use it much, it's just to brighten the room up"
You win battles by knowing the enemy's timing, and using a timing which the enemy does not expect. Miyamoto Musashi
I wonder why apple would doubt that it would work (other then to try and get them to by Xservers with the Xserver RAIDs), they just use fiberchannel, which is a standard.
This topic reminded me of an article in the print version of UK mag PC Pro by Jon Honeyball. He tells of one of his (consultancy) "clients" looking for a SAN/RAID solution from Dell and EMC, which would cost 120,000.
Aparently, Apples offering was 2TB storage for 9000 - vs 80,000 for 2TB from Dell/EMC.
In the article he says;The obvious question is whether you can put fibre channel cards into your Windows servers and connect them up too. Apple tells me this is possible The idea being to use the storage for SQL*Server databases and the like.
I'm not surprised this is such a good solution for use with Linux.
There's a new community site called alienRAID.org that focuses on supporting Xserve RAID in non-Apple and mixed environments. It's likely to be helpful to people interested in deploying Xserve RAID in conjunction with other platforms.
the X raid has dual redundant power supplies, redundant fans, dual redundant raid controllers, dual redundant and DEDICATED processors, dual redundant ethernet connection, dual redundant fiber channel outputs. it has separate busses and controllers for each ATI hard disk, and the busses to the disks are high speed. all of the disks are hot swapable self contained pluggin units. and it all sits in 3U. (plus another U for whatever server is receiving the fiber channel). All the software on board is tuned to the task and other than the web admin, the box has no extraneous services.
also the raid is Hardware raid 5,1,0 not software. other than a netapp at 25x the price, there's nothing that comes close.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
It runs linux check.
It has Apple. Check.
It has a low price for server hardware. check.
This article is hearby Slashdot approved.
I've been booting my Linux boxes from my XServe RAID for months now. It's just a fibre array. And the XRAID Admin program is a straight Java applications so you can run it on any platform that supports Sun Java 1.4.1.
Go figure.
It's not rocket science. These devices have been engineered using standards of the industry.
Doh!
Don't Ask Questions. I don't know the answers and even if I did I wouldn't tell you.
iTunes has been called a Trojan Horse that will slip into consumer PCs and perhaps persude them to buy an iPod or a Mac.
Will the XServe RAID become the equivalent Trojan Horse that will slip into corporate data centers and lead to future purchases of XServes?
I hope Apple doesn't ignore this opportunity but instead promotes the fact that the XServe RAID plays well with other systems.
I am aware that the apple product is theoretically a little better due to the fiber chanel over the LVD SCSI that I purchased but I think that for most (not all) people the LVD performance would be good enough.
I personally would recomend these Tornado RAID systems to just about anyone needing a lot of storage for a small price tag.
Apple went out of its way to describe how splendedly xServe RAID ran on Solaris, Linux, and even 2K/XP boxes at WWDC this year.
This is the same story they've been telling since xServe RAID was shipping (and probably before that since it was pre-announced very early).
I'm pretty sure that any doubts were from the customers or the Lunuxworld writer and not Apple. They've been trying to sell this for linux boxes. If it was 'Apple' that had doubts, then those engineers need to return to the mothership for some more training.
I'm not feeling witty so bite me
The linked article quotes the tech center's director:
"Also, at around 100Mbps read and write to disk, it is faster than our SCSI system which has an I/O of 50Mbps"
Never mind the whole base-2/base-10 "mebibyte" business... why can't people learn that the case of the "b"/"B" is significant!? Clearly he meant megaBytes, not bits.
By the way, Apple advertises the Xserve RAID's throughput in excess of 200MBps.
- Peter
INsigNIFICANT
Three things come immediately to mind:
1) Would it be hot swappable? (Remember: don't build systems that won't fail, build systems that fail gracefully).
2) What would it cost?
3) Is the fail rate so appreciably different that it matters and so that it would make up for the increased capital cost?
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
Up to 150-180 MB/s striped, see
g .pdf
http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~cbi/XServeTeststellun
Here is my back of the envelope calculation:
- $65,994 2.52 TB Xserve RAID (6x$10999)
Where did I make the mistake?$45,117 into someone else's pocket
--------
$111,111 Subtotal
-$11,111 Education and volume discount (10%)
--------
$100,000 Total
During the conference held couple weeks back at Melbourne Uni, the guy from Apple Australia explained to us as to why Swinburne TAFE decided to use the XRAIDS. As it's the only one that supports IDE (He went on to say that the whole reason why RAID is there for is to reduce the costs, yet others use the more expensive SCSI drives) it was the cheapest way to transfer the data from Parkes to Hawthorn. They basically get a van, pack the HDs onto it once the data is collected, and drive back to Melbourne, which is still cheaper and faster then transferring all the data through existing network channels. The ultmiate connectionless network =)
It's most likely a dealing with a branch office of a branch office problem. Swinburne is in Melbourne, Australia, while Apple Australian's main office is in Sydney.
Over the years Apple Australia has managed to hire a few people technically competent to think outside the square, but more often, after such people have moved on to bigger challenges, they are left with a team which operates almost entirely on received wisdom.
-- Our systemic servants do not good masters make.
Well, I'm just guessing that you haven't been actually reading any of the posts so I'll explain. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE XSERVE RAID. This has nothing to do with Mac desktops and there performance. The XServe RAID is an external fibre channel array, not a desktop. And in this case it is a lot cheaper than the competition.
<gir voice> I love this sig... </gir voice>