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."
I'm sure they meant 3GB as I know most non-normalized data generally can be compressed 10:1.
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.
Actually, while there are multiple controllers and cache modules in the Xserve RAID, they are not redundant. Each controller and cache module is responsible for its own side of the enclosure. The power supplies, cooling modules, etc., are fully redundant. The RAID Admin utility (the java piece), however, can talk to both controllers through only one IP address, so in effect, the ethernet devices are sort of redundant. This is all in the PDF documentation on the website, FYI.
(Still a good deal for the money compared to some others, in my biased opinion.)
(Posted anonymously because I work for Apple.)
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.
:(
The only "disadvantage" of Apple's product is each individual disk is relatively slow (specs say 7200 RPM vs. 10000 to 15000 RPM for other options). Other than that, Apple really has a killer product (at least on paper...I don't have one
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
You ever plugged a Fibre Channel RAID into a random Linux box? Your chances of getting it to work correctly without a lot of pain-in-the-assedness are about one in five.
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
Interesting, we have 5 servers using qlogic 2200s. The default redhat kernel since 7.x works fine, autodetects the driver right out of the box. As long as the san zones are set up correctly, it'll find the disks with absolutely no problem.
$100,000 Australian = $69,917 US