Raid server setup

[mvoogt]

I'm thinking of redoing my fm server and upgrading to 16. My users experence a lot of slow down when remote users are connected or when multiple users are in the same layout/table doing data entry. 

Im hoping setting up a raid 1+0 might solve this. I have a Mac Pro trash can server with 16gb ram. Right now server and the database are stored on the same single ssd.

should I keep the server app installed on the internal ssd and move the database file to a thunderbolt raid? Is that how I get the most benefit?

can anyone recommend a great raid controller or point me to a setup recommendation?

[Wim Decorte]

RAIDs are not meant to solve performance issues; the only purpose of a RAID is to provide the R: redundancy.  In fact; RAIDs often introduce some performance degradation unless you go with really high-end RAID controllers and other hardware.  I don't know of any for Mac Pros because I typically trust internal hardware and I don't think you can modify the trash can in that respect.

"Hope" is a bad strategy: analyze the performance issues, start with the FMS stats.log and see which of the 4 typical bottlenecks is causing the slowdowns.  If it is not the disk i/o then fixing things in that area is not going to bring anything so find out what it causing the issue, then we can help figure out what good solutions for it are.

[John May - Point In Space]

What?  RAIDs *most definitely* can solve performance issues.  We use RAID 10 on all of our VMs, which provides both striping for speed and mirroring for redundancy.  Definitely use a hardware controller and drives that are appropriate for RAIDing.

Considering Thunderbolt is basically a direct path to the PCI bus, you should certainly be able to find external RAIDs that would suit your needs.  I personally don't have any specific recommendations, though.  I also can't say if a faster drive subsystem will solve your issues, as it could also be an issue of needing more RAM, processor power, etc.

- John

[mvoogt]

I was thinking of getting something like this and putting 4 ssds in it setup as RAID 1+0 (my understanding is that will offer me the most performance.) Does this act as a RAID controller? Also? I just put the database file on that raid drive yes? I don't install fms on the raid.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=details&O=&Q=&ap=y&c3api=1876%2C{creative}%2C{keyword}&gclid=CMeB7--QotQCFRB0fgodc1EDnQ&is=REG&sku=1046491

Edited June 3, 2017 by mvoogt

[Wim Decorte]

10 hours ago, John May - Point In Space said:

What?  RAIDs *most definitely* can solve performance issues.  - John

Didn't say that it couldn't.  Did say that they are not meant to be performance solving implementations.  Their main purpose is redundancy not speed.

 

[John May - Point In Space]

mvoogt:

Sorry, I can't comment on any specific products or implementations as there are just so many combinations.

 

Wim:

But that's just not correct.  RAIDs are very often used for the primary goal of performace improvement, sometimes even without striping (for redundancy) to gain maximum performance.

From Wikipedia:
"RAID (redundant array of independent disks) is a data storage virtualization technology that combines multiple physical disk drive components into a single logical unit for the purposes of data redundancy, performance improvement, or both."

- John

[ggt667]

On 6/3/2017 at 1:29 PM, Wim Decorte said:

RAIDs are not meant to solve performance issues; the only purpose of a RAID is to provide the R: redundancy.  In fact; RAIDs often introduce some performance degradation unless you go with really high-end RAID controllers and other hardware.

What on earth are you talking about?

ZFS( the mac implementation is called O3X: https://openzfsonosx.org ) gives an amazing performance boost if you use a good HBA( RAID card in JBOD mode )

I have RAIDZ2 running with 8x 500MB/sec drives in which gives me 2800MB/sec read and write. My guess is something like this would be nice: Areca ARC-8050T2 8-Bay Thunderbolt 20Gb/s SAS/SATA/SSD Drive RAID Storage Enclosure

This one I have attached to an iMac: https://eshop.macsales.com/item/OWC/TB4MJB0GB/ as an o3x RAIDZ1

On 6/4/2017 at 1:21 AM, Wim Decorte said:

Didn't say that it couldn't.  Did say that they are not meant to be performance solving implementations.  Their main purpose is redundancy not speed.

 

Well, that may go for the old numbered RAID systems 0, 1, 5, 6, 10, 55 and 66, but for the FS level RAIDs it's a different story. ZFS provides, ciphering, RAIDZn, compression, copy on write, snapshots and all kinds of good stuff. My guess is Apple has implemented some of this stuff as well in the APFS.

 

For RAIDZ the number is how many drives can go down without loosing data.

Edited June 6, 2017 by ggt667

[mvoogt]

Thanks ggt667. That owc enclosure was exactly what I was thinking of getting. 4 ssds setup as raid 10. Do you recommend something else or a different config?

Also, as far as setup... can I leave fms server installed on the server internal ssd and just move the hosted databases to the raid drive? Is this the correct setup to maximize the raid speed?

very interested to see what apfs has to offer in the fall. 

[ggt667]

Numbered RAIDs are obsolete. Do yourself a favour and read up on: O3X: https://openzfsonosx.org )

AFPS may work well for a workstation, for a server you will still benefit from running ZFS.

 

I would say the correct setup is to move as much of your solution as possible to RAM. If you move your filmmaker files to the SSD RAID in essence you have moved them to RAM.

 

The single most effective way to improve speed of any server service on a mac regardless of drive spec is to turn off spotlight; I see from your profile that you use Yosemite:

sudo launchctl unload -w /System/Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.metadata.mds.plist

According to this link: http://recomhub.com/blog/how-to-disable-or-enable-spotlight-in-mac-os-x-yosemite-mavericks-mountain-lion/

Edited June 6, 2017 by ggt667

[BrentHedden]

On 6/6/2017 at 2:57 PM, ggt667 said:

Numbered RAIDs are obsolete. Do yourself a favour and read up on: O3X: https://openzfsonosx.org )

I have no experience with O3X, but ZFS (which is what this is based off of) is the best FS that I've ever worked with.  Great performance and rock-solid reliability.

If you really feel that your drive performance is the bottleneck, then I would suggest going with a software RAID instead of a hardware type.  RAID cards with decent performance are expensive, and if it craps out, then it's a PITA and costly to repair.  Software RAIDS like this O3X are typically easier to recover from and in many cases offer better performance fro what I've tested.

[ggt667]

On 6 June, 2017 at 8:57 PM, ggt667 said:

filmmaker

Note to self; never trust autocorrect.