Media Centre House | Forum

Built a file server for work on a RAID5 array* and running Windows 7 (because HOW much is Windows Server?!), but it causes the XP machines accessing it to crash

Now I know I could spend hours trying to figuring out why but I know Windows is bloated so a quick Google later for 'file server' and Samba came up (Linux or even Mac OS), then another quick search and Kubuntu came up as a preference.

Skim reading a few tutorials and it seems Kubuntu has a good GUI (for those of us too lazy for command line interfaces) and should get a file server up and running at speed in no time.

Ran out of time to get it fully installed before leaving for the weekend but will report how easy and how well it works (if at all for me!).

*(RAID is a method of configuring multiple hard drives to act as one, reducing the probability of catastrophic data loss in case of drive failure. RAID is implemented in either software (where the operating system knows about both drives and actively maintains both of them) or hardware (where a special controller makes the OS think there's only one drive and maintains the drives 'invisibly'))

Well about 2 days of installing later and I've reached Linux-server-heaven!

I knew I wanted to install Ubuntu Server with Samba for Windows file sharing, so I got hold of the Linux Pendrive software and tried out the Ubuntu and Kubuntu desktop versions first (Pendrive allows you to easily create a bootable USB stick from any of the free Linux OS like Ubuntu - give it a go!) and fathomed that there's next to no difference between them other than the supplied software. Ubuntu seemed a better version due to more thorough disk management software (SMART monitoring etc). And yes I know this isn't a hardcore server, as a 'proper' one wouldn't have a GUI

Now the main part of me building a file server is speed and stability, so RAID5 seemed the best option (minimum of 3 disks required and it merges speed (striping) and stability (mirroring-ish)) and I read that Ubuntu Server could install itself on a RAID5 array in software and perform well (OSs normally require hardware for RAID installation: I have nVidia Mediashield on my new mobo (Gigabyte GA-M68M-S2P) but it's crap - hardware in principal but high CPU loads when running under Windows7. It's nothing more than a small BIOS chip to tell the OS that there's 'one' drive and no data processing is done by it whatsoever, that's all handed off to the CPU which in my case was 30% - 50% during idle on a Windows7 install with a Sempron 140. Ouch!! Oh, and whats more, Ubuntu wouldn't boot from it - useless).

So back to installing on RAID5 as software; I wouldn't have a clue where to start with this, but luckily there's an idiot-proof guide. If you follow it to the letter you can't go wrong. Honestly.

Now I'm no command-line wannabe, so although the idea of Ubuntu Server is to have no GUI, I can't be arsed learning all the commands and parameters, luckily it allows you to pick a GUI during install and it downloads it as necessary. After playing with Ubuntu/Kubuntu on my laptop with the Pendrive software I went for Ubuntu for it's all encompassing software tools. About an hour later and Ubuntu Server was up and running as a software-implemented RAID5 array of three Samsung HD103SJ 1TB drives which gives 2TB as available space.

Of course the whole point of this was file sharing for a Windows network and that falls to Samba. Samba is the original Linux file server process that runs in the background without any problems or interference. Remember to select it also during the Ubuntu Server install and that's it (but it can easily be installed afterward). Samba requires configuration of its shares via a text document (easily Googlable), but the shares can also be setup with the standard Ubuntu file explorer (Nautilus) by right-clicking on selected folders and that usual stuff.

Now I don't have any raw figures for actual usage, but it's quick! On it's first implemtation with RAID5 setup in the BIOS via nVidia's Mediashield and a Windows 7 install it ran about 15% faster than a single drive would and it had high (>30%) CPU overheads because of the poor Mediashield implementation. Plus it crashed the XP machines that were accessing it - go figure Basically a load of crap.

But now under Linux controlling its own RAID and with Samba handling the file sharing it bloody flies along! I have 3 main PCs accessing it at work for audio/video and they now respond faster than when working off their own internal drives (500GB SATAII >2yrs old). And even with all 3 clients thrashing the server the CPU load goes no higher than 50% average. Good ol' £25 Sempron eh. And even pushing the GUI on it hard by running Firefox etc so to max out the CPU to 100% (not hard to do on a Sempron), it never dropped data delivery to the other PCs.

So for anyone wanting a fast file server, spend £350 at Ebuyer on a basic mobo/case, decent PSU and 3 fast-ish SATA drives and grab a copy of Linux Pendrive with Ubuntu Server and get it running as RAID5. Brilliant

I've gone from complete Linux-noob to server administrator in a matter of a week.

(Oh, and it can be remotely controlled from Windows via the free TightVNC EDIT: but only as long as a monitor is connected to the server - Linux doesn't load a desktop if it can't see a monitor connected at boot. Hmmmm, time to figure that one out.)


2 partitions are required by Linux, one for the OS (2TB as shown below) and a 'swap' partition that can be set equal to the RAM or higher if min RAM installed (>1GB). 'Swap' is used as virtual memory.
[attachment=207]

[attachment=209]


For the same price as a single fast 64GB SSD, I've achieved the same data rates but with 2TB available.
[attachment=208]

OK. Perhaps RAID5 is not the easiest thing to tackle, especially when it goes wrong...


Server became unresponsive this morning so (stupidly) I pressed the restart button. Whoops.

Now the RAID5 has become degraded and it won't boot.

4hrs of Googling later for a way around it and still no fix to my headache. Tried loads of things but command-line Linux is not the easiest thing to navigate. Oh how I long for a GUI.

Fingers crossed tomorrow brings a bit more good news about it otherwise it's away with RAID5 and in for something a bit more stable under forced restarts. Bugger.

OK, worked out after about 12hrs of trying that the server is toast. RAID5 can tolerate 1 drive failure and in my ignorance to fix it quickly I knackered 2 of the 3. Damn. Have learnt a hell of a lot though but would like to give command line instructions a break for a few days

So onwards and upwards and it's going to be like a phoenix from the flames.

I've decided to go hardware RAID as for work reliability is more important than geeking around. It seems the best fully hardware entry level card is the £180 Adaptec 2405. A proper RAID card and none of this onboard-firmware-mobo or manually-have-to-fix-software-mallarky. It's fully supportive of lots of hardware and built on common computer standards, unlike some bad things I've read about competitor cards from 3Ware, so should work with almost any setup. Plus the firmware for it is constantly updated with lots of fixes and updates.

So have also ordered a fourth 1Tb Samsung for a RAID 10 array (mirror of a stripe).

Now it seems that places like O3D find that it is not that much quicker than the onboard Intel Matrix RAID chip found on almost all Intel mobos nowadays for the purpose of either RAID 1 or 0, but apparently for a more complex RAID 10 it will significantly boost performance under load.

So fingers crossed I don't shag another RAID server...

Oh, I did also consider for a second installing Windows or even Home Server as it'll be a proper RAID card, but I'm sticking with Ubuntu Server with Samba as it's more than proved itself under load in the past few weeks. And it's free!

An hour before I left work for the day earlier the 2405 RAID card turned up and I had a brief time to get it in the server and play with it.

I ran Ubuntu on my USB stick as usual and the new RAID 10 (4 drives = a mirror of a stripe i.e. 2 disks sharing the load and 2 more mirroring them) appeared as a drive in the disk manager software.

I did a quick read/write benchmark and got a peak read of ~482MB/sec!?!? and a peak write of ~212MB/sec!?! I can only imagine that the card is intelligently reading from all 4 drives at once despite it being a mirror

Now either I've misread those readings or I have one uber-quick server!

Whatever the result, I'll spend more time on it next week and post a screenshot of the benchmark. Fingers crossed it as it looked earlier.

Bit late to the party on this but I use clark connect (which is now called something else - clearOS or something?) That was an easy first time set up and it can be controlled via web access (mine is local only though).

Used to use freenas but then got scared that if the whole lot went belly up I wouldn't be able to rescue the hard drives (it uses a unique variant of freebsd as the underlying platform rather than linux).

Phil

(10-06-2010 06:38 PM)PhilH Wrote: [ -> ]Bit late to the party on this but I use clark connect (which is now called something else - clearOS or something?) That was an easy first time set up and it can be controlled via web access (mine is local only though).

Used to use freenas but then got scared that if the whole lot went belly up I wouldn't be able to rescue the hard drives (it uses a unique variant of freebsd as the underlying platform rather than linux).

Phil

Nice one

Looks like it might be the ticket for what I need.

Ubuntu is a great all-round OS but if all I want is a file server then ClearOS might be a better option.

Will run it tomorrow hopefully.

OK, tried ClearOS and it did work well, however although it does do everything under the sun it didn't sit quite right with me.

Back to Ubuntu Server...

10.04 wouldn't recognise the Adaptec RAID card during install so I had to install the Desktop version and manually install the Samba file sharing process.

Buggy though and kept dropping transfer on/off the server. Not good. It did not like the Adaptec card at all.


So reset the four disk array on the 2405 card to a single 2Tb RAID10 and installed the latest Ubuntu Server 10.10 version that was released a few days ago.

This time the Ubuntu Server installer detected the array and allowed installation. However I didn't install the Gnome desktop so was left with a command line interface

Typed 'sudo apt-get install ubuntu-desktop' and it whizzed away for about 20mins installing it. Rebooted and the new 10.10 desktop awaited me. Hooray.

Set a folder share and now it's blindingly quick. I know the network bottlenecks any transfers at ~100MB/sec, but it's the access times and zero delays that really make it worthwhile. Nothing makes it halt; drag files from one PC onto it while accessing others from another PC and there is no slowdown either end. None. Zilch. Brilliant

Even tried pushing the reset button while it was being hammered with data reads over the network and when it booted up again all was there and in one piece. No loss or corruption.

Fingers crossed that's the saga of this over and done with. I can't even remember when I started this create-a-server-cos-it'll-save-time project. Some time in July I think. Urrgg!

Oh, and the latest version, or at least the Server install with Gnome added later, boots the Gnome desktop without a monitor attached. Very handy for VNC control from a remote Windows PC.

Just did a read-only benchmark of the array and ...

I'll take the spike of 665MB as an anomaly!

Even so, an average of 355MB/sec ain't bad for four Samsung HD103SJ

[attachment=221]

Finally after weeks, no, months of messing about with a Linux server I have a stable, happy machine. Even one that survives hard restarts

Ubuntu Server 10.10 is a much better install for the Adpatec 2405 RAID card than the previous 10.04 version, and so far all the Windows clients (XP and Win7) attached to it are happy as well.

I did have one stumbling block whereby allowing folders on the server to be guest shares just by enabling them in the Nautilus explorer caused a login request at the Windows PC on a few occasions. So I edited the Samba configuration file (located at '/etc/samba/') and just copied the unRAID one thinking that if unRAID works a treat, it's settings must be good (attached as .txt file for reference).

With Ubuntu previously installing on it's own three drive RAID5 array I got 250MB/sec reads, now with the 2405 card and a four drive RAID10 I get 460MB/sec

Not a bad result and worth the hardship of it all.

Taught me a lot about Linux that's for sure

All-in-all a good result.