2

We're looking at using velociraptor 10k SATA drives in a Dell Poweredge R720.

The late-2012 1 TB WD velociraptors seem like a great fit for our situation (need 10s of TBs of storage in a 2.5" format for servers with solid performance).

I can't find any examples online of people using these disks in a 2.5" server RAID configuration, but I see at Switch SATA disks in DELL PowerEdge R410 suggesting that only certain Velociraptor models have the right connection for a Poweredge backplane setup.

Does anybody know if there will be problems connecting the new velociraptors to the server backplane? Are there issues combining the 4k sector "advanced format" design with a standard RAID card?

We would go with a Dell H710P.

ewwhite
  • 194,921
  • 91
  • 434
  • 799
JZeta
  • 159
  • 1
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
    Why use CONSUMER 2.5" 10krpm disks in a server when you can buy SERVER-SPECIFIC 2.5" 10krpm disks for most servers anyway? You do know those disks aren't designed to be worked more than 30% of the time and they're designed for single-user applications not deep-queue server applications? Sounds like a recipe for disaster, just use the supported disks. – Chopper3 Jan 24 '13 at 09:36
  • I'm not sure of the answer as to whether you can use them or not but you should have no problems with a 2.5" backplane. It's the 3.5" version that cause the problem. There's a 3.5" model that's just the 2.5" disk in a 3.5" sized heatsink, which obviously won't line up with a 3.5" backplane, and a 3.5" model with the connectors separated out into the correct placement. – USD Matt Jan 24 '13 at 09:46
  • @Chopper3 VelociRaptors have been explicitly specified for server use and have 1,4 Million Hours MTBF and a 5-year warranty with an advance replacement service. This is pretty much what other 2,5" enterprise-grade SAS-drives have on the spec sheet. From my personal experience, the VelociRaptors are quite okay, although rather slow in terms of IOPS compared to 15K 3,5" SAS drives. – the-wabbit Jan 24 '13 at 10:08
  • 3
    But they're still hamstrung by the SATA protocol and its poor queuing compared to SAS disks. You can get 1.2TB SFF 10k SAS disks now, if performance is a concern you should be using these. If performance isn't a concern just use NL-SAS. – MDMarra Jan 24 '13 at 13:15
  • @USDMatt your statement is incorrect. 2.5" models in 3.5" heatsinks still have proper location for all the connectors to be used with backplane connectors. It is part of SATA spec requirement. – Mxx Jan 24 '13 at 14:35
  • @Chopper3 your statement about "server-specific" drives being faster than velociraptor are incorrect as well. these drives are the fastest platter drives, bar none, even in high-queue depth situations. They are even faster than some budget SSD drives. – Mxx Jan 24 '13 at 14:39
  • 4
    @Mxx, you're 100% incorrect, talking rubbish - firstly many if not most enterprise 2.5" disks run at 15krpm, 50% faster than the velociraptor's 10krpm and they use SCSI based interfaces such as FC and SAS which have considerably higher queue depths and are specifically designed to handle out of order requests - whereas Velociraptors use the consumer oriented SATA protocol which is designed for far lower concurrency operations. So your statement that they're the 'fastest bar none' is just incorrect. – Chopper3 Jan 24 '13 at 14:46
  • @Chopper3 see http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/velociraptor-1tb-hdd-ssd,3250-6.html and http://www.anandtech.com/show/5729/western-digital-velociraptor-1tb-wd1000dhtz-review/3 I can supply many more reviews like that. Where's your proof? – Mxx Jan 24 '13 at 14:59
  • 3
    @Mxx There isn't a single SAS 10k or 15k disk, or enterprise SSD measured in that link... Are you sure you know what you're talking about? Also, it looks like they benched heavily in single-user scenerios, not multi-user workloads like you see in servers. – MDMarra Jan 24 '13 at 15:03
  • 3
    @Mxx That review contains ZERO 15krpm disks, only 10krpm and lower. Are you simply not aware of the existence of 15krpm disks? Are you also not aware that serverfault is FILLED with people who ONLY buy enterprise storage, that's their only job, and they spend millions per year doing this, and none of them buy velociraptors over 15krpm disks, as they're not fit for purpose when performance is key. It's like you're claiming BMW M5's (a very quick saloon car) is the fastest of all cars, ignoring say racing cars, just blind to what you don't know. – Chopper3 Jan 24 '13 at 15:05
  • 3
    @Mxx - if you want an ACTUAL review showing professional enterprise disks that include a range of different speed disks perhaps look at a website that's not about gaming and consumer hardware like this; http://www.storagereview.com/toshiba_mk01grrbr_25_15k_sas_enterprise_hard_drive_review Oddly enough it clearly shows how 15krpm disks are a lot faster than 10krpm disks - funny that. – Chopper3 Jan 24 '13 at 15:07
  • @Mxx as I said they do produce a revision with the sane, correct placement. However, believe it or not WD were stupid enough to produce a model with the wrong placement, http://images.productwiki.com/upload/images/western_digital_velociraptor_wd3000glfs_4.jpg, as mentioned in the question linked by the OP – USD Matt Jan 24 '13 at 16:24
  • @USDMatt wd3000glfs that you linked is a discontinued model and is not the same generation as WD1000CHTZ(as of this moment the only 1TB model available). Furthermore, your picture shows a problem in 3.5" configuration. OP is talking about 2.5" setup, which even that drive would work fine in(once removed from the heatsink). – Mxx Jan 24 '13 at 16:38
  • 1
    Err? I clearly said in my first post that the OP would have no problem because he's using 2.5" disks. I was just explaining the source of the problem in the page that he linked to was nothing to do with poweredge specifically, as the OP made out. That person was using 3.5" disks, of which there were 2 models, one which fitted backplanes and an original model which didn't. – USD Matt Jan 24 '13 at 16:44

4 Answers4

4

Yes, they will work. Everything will fit and will be recognized by the controller, etc.

But please consider using proper SAS drives or the actual Dell-branded models. Don't pay retail. You can find them for less.

If you need capacity, go with nearline SAS disks (7.2k).

If you need performance, go with enterprise SAS disks (10k or 15k RPM).

Why?

How can a single disk in a hardware SATA RAID-10 array bring the entire array to a screeching halt?

SAS vs Near-line SAS vs SATA

Community
  • 1
ewwhite
  • 194,921
  • 91
  • 434
  • 799
2

If you want a disk that will definitely work in a brandname server, you should look into what that brandname vendor has to offer. These disks are usually more expensive, but you get replacement support and an assurance that these disks were tested with the hardware you are purchasing.

dyasny
  • 18,482
  • 6
  • 48
  • 63
1

Most of the Dell PERC controllers are OEM versions of LSI, Adaptec... units, so it would help to consult the HCLs for these...

Be sure to understand the difference between RAID optimized and desktop/single-disk-server optimized drives (TLER and vibration handling!), and research if there are tools available to configure the relevant settings (with some drives you can with others you cannot).

Also, SAS systems usually handle unorthodox failure modes of drives in an array better (a SATA drive with the right kind of electronics fault can freeze some RAID controllers solid).

rackandboneman
  • 2,487
  • 10
  • 8
0

I would say yes, those drives will work fine with your configuration. I say that based on the fact that I went to Dell's website and configured R720 with H710P controller, RAID 5 or 6 setup and 16 500GB SATA drives. If it accepted these drives, I see no reason why it would not accept Velociraptors.

Having said that, if you need a lot of storage, have you considered R720xd servers? They support up to 26 drives (instead of 16 in R720). With that kind of setup you'll be able to get more spindles(or even SSDs), which gives you more IOPS, and you won't have to buy 'maximum capacity' drives which usually have a significant premium in $/GB.

Mxx
  • 2,312
  • 2
  • 26
  • 40