3 ms·

My experience with hardware RAID cards (LSI, PERC, etc) is vastly different than the recommendations you heard. I have been running production servers with LSI

• sliken 4y ago
  Glad it's worked for you. I don't think I've had anything that conflicts with your experiences. I didn't mean to imply a degraded hardware RAID wouldn't mount, I think that's a BTRFS RAID5 issue. Generally I'd consider BTRFS a toy, doubly so for RAID5/6 on BTRFS. Generally I (and colleagues) consider a hardware RAID failure a nightmare and a SAS HBA failure an annoyance. Doubly so if your storage design included cross connected servers and you just mount the storage from the other server. I've never tried similar with a hardware RAID. Can you cross mount and easily import/export RAID sets between controllers? The main hardware RAID performance issues I see is with higher drive counts or NVME drives when combined with RAID6. Seen any hardware RAIDs and can manage a few GB/sec with 2 disks of redundancy? 3 disks? Even spending a few $k on hardware RAID seems to lose to a random 5 year old server using ZFS or software RAID by a large factor. Seems like even pretty old x86-64 servers manage a few GB/sec per core. Careful on the passthru, I had many generations of LSI cards that worked, and 3ware and Areca before that. However I've been hearing that the new LSI RAID cards lack passthru/JBOD mode. I've seen reviews and complaints about the lack of it. One case had involved a LSI hardware RAID connected to a Dell JBOD array, but maybe it was specifically crippled by Dell. I avoided ZFS for years, generally slower at the relevant workloads (used IO logs collected with systemtap and representative loads created with FIO). However once I added cache and the benchmark included multiple streams of writes, ZFS was a huge win. In particular 64 or more sequential write streams to 120 disks. In fact ZFS did better with 3 disks of redundancy that other filesystems did with 2. In that past I had more luck with ZFS or MDADM for doing things like /dev/sd[ab]1 for a 32gb RAID1 for boot, then /dev/sd[abcd]2 for RAID5 or RAIDz2. Sounds like the hardware RAID tools are get better. I've heard of some hardware RAID setups managing to recover hardware RAID metadata with a new card, and some not. Even cases of successes and failures from the same company. Even cases where support claimed it would work, but then decided the card and/or firmware wasn't close enough. Sure decent support can overnight a card, but nowhere near as nice as just being able to mount the drives on any Linux box.
  • rtp4me 4y ago
    Interesting, thanks for the perspective. Myself, I treat MDADM/ZFS RAID failure more of a headache than RAID cards. As I mentioned earlier, RAID cards allow for easy hot-swap without any OS intervention. I am always nervous when I have to replace drives out of a ZFS pool - mainly because I forget the exact commands that need to be run (in order) for a successful swap. With hardware RAID - no commands :-) Thus far, we don't have any high-density NVMe servers so I can't really test high-end servers. My experience is limited to 8x SSDs or 16x spinning drives in our arrays. Finally, I avoided ZFS for a long time as well. Early on (OpenZFS 0.6, 0.7, etc), I spent an enormous amount of time trying to tweak/tune the system just to get on par with our HW RAID devices. No matter what I did, I simply could not get the server (typical Linux NFS NAS) to get any decent performance. In fact, I clearly remember HW RAID hitting 1.8GB/sec on our SSDs while OpenZFS could only get around 400MB/sec. Only until OpenZFS 2.1 mark did I see any real performance gains. ...Speaking of ZFS... I recently worked on a project to replace XFS with ZFS for Postgresql servers. I learned a lot about OpenZFS - specifically the memory latency when using compression. I had a lengthy discussion with the OpenZFS "gang" (https://zfsonlinux.topicbox.com/groups/zfs-discuss/T5122ffd3e191f75f https://zfsonlinux.topicbox.com/groups/zfs-discuss/T5122ffd3...) to identify some large latency numbers. Turns out, you need to disable ARC compression and "ADB Scatter Enabled" otherwise you will definitely hit some performance issues. Take a look at that thread - especially the very end where I publish some tuning suggestions. It was a fun learning exercise :-)
    • CoolCold 4y ago
      > mainly because I forget the exact commands that need to be run (in order) for a successful swap. With hardware RAID - no commands :-) I find it useful to implement some sort of tag or link to wiki be added to alerts information [like on failed drive in your case] - makes much easier to every team member to fix the issue without guessing/invent own way during the outage.
    • CoolCold 4y ago
      And thanks for the link provided, quite interesting. I plan to redo my canary server with zfs and mysql (primary case for me is ~ 3 times compression) as current one is not much stable highly likely due to my tries to use latest zfs with Ubuntu HWE on 20.04 - this time will use 22.04 with stock ZFS and will go through your findings more closely.
• warmwaffles 4y ago
  I run my two LSI cards in HBA mode. The initial minor annoyance that I had was having to flash the cards in. Which coincidentally was also my first time ever doing something like that. Do you have any experience with hardware RAID provided by motherboard manufacturers like Asus? I have a spare dual xeon system I may utilize for my next NAS build and I'll pair it with two more RAID cards that can be put in HBA.