raid - Can "enterprise" drives be safely replaced by near/midline in some situations?

itemprop="text">

When specifying servers, like (I would
assume) many engineers who aren't experts in storage, I'll generally play it safe (and
perhaps be a slave to marketing) by standardising on a minimum of 10k SAS drives (and
therefore are "enterprise"-grade with a 24x7 duty cycle, etc) for "system" data (usually
OS and sometimes apps), and reserve the use of 7.2k mid/nearline drives for storage of
non-system data where performance isn't a significant factor. This is all assuming 2.5"
(SFF) disks, as 3.5" (LFF) disks are only really relevant for high-capacity, low IOPs
requirements.

In situations where there isn't a
massive amount of non-system data, I'll generally place it on the same disks/array as
the system data, meaning the server only has 10k SAS drives (generally a "One Big
RAID10" type of setup these days). Only if the size of the non-system data is
significant do I usually consider putting it on a separate array of 7.2k mid/nearline
disks to keep the cost/GB down.

This has lead me
to wonder: in some situations, could those 10k disks in the RAID10 array have been
replaced with 7.2k disks without any significant negative consequences? In other words,
am I sometimes over-spec'ing (and keeping the hardware vendors happy) by sticking to a
minimum of 10k "enterprise" grade disks, or is there a good reason to always stick to
that as a minimum?

For example, take a server
that acts as a hypervisor with a couple of VMs for a typical small company (say 50
users). The company has average I/O patterns with no special requirements. Typical 9-5,
Mon-Fri office, with backups running for a couple of hours a night. The VMs could
perhaps be a DC and a file/print/app server. The server has a RAID10 array with 6 disks
to store all the data (system and non-system data). To my non-expert eye, it looks as
though mid/nearline disks may do just fine. Taking HP disks as an
example:

• Workload:
  Midline disks are rated for <40% workload. With the office only open for 9 hours a
  day and average I/O during that period unlikely to be anywhere near maximum, it seems
  unlikely workload would go over 40%. Even with a couple of hours of intense I/O at night
  for backups, my guess is it would still be below
  40%


• Speed: Although the disks are only 7.2k, performance
  is improved by spreading it across six
  disks

So, my question: is
it sensible to stick a minimum of 10k SAS drives, or are 7.2k midline/nearline disks
actually more than adequate in many situations? If so, how do I gauge where the line is
and avoid being a slave to ignorance by playing it
safe?

My experience is mostly with HP servers,
so the above may have a bit an HP slant to it, but I would assume the principles are
fairly vendor independent.

itemprop="text">

class="normal">Answer

There's
an interesting intersection of server design, disk technology and economics
here:

Also see: href="https://serverfault.com/questions/681386/why-are-large-form-factor-lff-disks-still-fairly-prevelant/681409#681409">Why
are Large Form Factor (LFF) disks still fairly
prevalent?

• The
  move toward dense rackmount and small form-factor servers. E.g. you don't see many tower
  offerings anymore from the major manufacturers, whereas the denser product lines enjoy
  more frequent revisions and have more
  options/availability.


• Stagnation in 3.5" enterprise (15k)
  disk development - 600GB 15k 3.5" is about as large as you can go.
  


• Slow advancement in 2.5" near line (7.2k) disk
  capacities - 2TB is the largest you'll find there.
  


• Increased availability and lower pricing of high
  capacity SSDs.


• Storage consolidation onto shared storage.
  Single-server workloads that require high capacity can sometimes be serviced via
  SAN.


• The maturation of all-flash and hybrid storage
  arrays, plus the influx of storage
  startups.

The
above are why you generally find manufacturers focusing on 1U/2U servers with 8-24 2.5"
disk drive bays.

3.5" disks are for low-IOPs
high-capacity use cases (2TB+). They're best for external storage enclosures or SAN
storage fronted by some form of caching. In enterprise 15k RPM speeds, they are only
available up to 600GB.

2.5" 10k RPM spinning
disks are for higher IOPS needs and are generally available up to 1.8TB capacity.

2.5" 7.2k RPM spinning disks are a bad call
because they offer neither capacity, performance, longevity nor price advantages. E.g.
The cost of a 900GB SAS 10k drive is very close to that of a 1TB 7.2k RPM SAS. Given the
small price difference, the 900GB drive is the better buy. In the example of href="http://www.provantage.com/hpe-791034-b21~7CMPT6U9.htm" rel="nofollow
noreferrer">1.8TB 10k SAS versus href="http://www.provantage.com/hpe-765466-b21~7CMPT6QU.htm" rel="nofollow
noreferrer">2.0TB 7.2k SAS, the prices are also very close. The warranties
are 3-year and 1-year,
respectively.

So for servers and 2.5"
internal storage, use SSD or 10k. If you need capacity needs and have 3.5" drive bays
available internally or externally, use 7.2k
RPM.

For the use cases you've described, you're
not over-configuring the servers. If they have 2.5" drive bays, you should really just
be using 10k SAS or SSD. The midline disks are a lose on performance, capacity, have a
significantly shorter warranty and won't save much on cost.