EPYC CPU for a NAS

Discussion in 'Multiprocessing Systems' started by N Bates, Jul 21, 2019.

  1. N Bates

    N Bates Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    146
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2017
    I know this cpu is probably an overkill for a NAS but my system is way due for an upgrade and I bought the below parts for the new proper server build, all this to fit in a Norco 24 bay case, current system is based on a Abit X38 motherboard and an Intel Q6600 cpu (hardly server class hardware):

    Asrock EPYCD8-T2 (could be the EPYCD8, I haven't receive it yet, Amazon description is T2 but there was two of the same mobo priced differently, if not the T2, I will connect x540 T2)
    Crucial 2 x 16 DDR4 single bank RDIMM
    Corsair MP510 480GB nvme drive
    Noctua NH U9 TR4/SP3 (two fan model)

    Undecided on the below:

    AMD EPYC 7301

    Or:

    AMD EPYC 7251
    Plus 2 more crucial stick of RDIMM

    Which above CPU option will be best for the NAS build.
     
  2. techguymaxc

    techguymaxc [H]Lite

    Messages:
    115
    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2016
    Is this for home use? We run enterprise file server VMs with only 4 cores. This isn't overkill, you're literally throwing money away.
     
    kirbyrj, Meeho and IdiotInCharge like this.
  3. N Bates

    N Bates Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    146
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2017
    Yes, this is for home use, I wanted a board with a lot of PCIe slots and lanes and this is what has steared me this way, so the EPYC 7251 with the 8 core 16 threads will be good enought, this is the cheapest and the lowest EPYC from AMD, so I would't be able to go any lower than that.
     
  4. WestSidaz

    WestSidaz Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    192
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2011
    If you are still running Q6600.. u aint updating your gear so often so that much overkill sounds decent.. make one great overkill system and it serves you for a really long time.. no need to update every 5 years ;) :D
     
    N Bates likes this.
  5. defaultluser

    defaultluser [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    12,421
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2006
    Threadripper 2 would be "overkill" for a NAS. That is absolutely insane.
     
  6. N Bates

    N Bates Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    146
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2017
    I wanted sturdy server gear that was going to work as intended and was going to last, the EPYC are for servers, threadrippers are supposed to be for workstations, this is not my main PC, I will be upgrading that around the end of the year, I am still running an i7 920 :wacky:.
     
  7. DogsofJune

    DogsofJune 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,550
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2008
    It absolutely is. Even with a 1900x
     
    auntjemima likes this.
  8. Hagrid

    Hagrid [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,328
    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    An Epyc system for a NAS? I have not really looked into those much, but don't people usually build them out of spare parts that are usually ECC capable at best?
     
  9. N Bates

    N Bates Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    146
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2017
    Yes, but usually if using spare parts and you need to attach, 24 or more drives and need the best 10gb speed you can get, old hardware won't cut it... and you won't get ECC capable hardware unless you buy old server gear.
     
  10. IdiotInCharge

    IdiotInCharge [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    11,291
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    Should look closer at what NASs are built and sold as- you could do this with Ryzen 3000, with ECC RAM, 10Gbit (10Gbase-T onboard if you want), and roll out.

    ...Or, you can actually get an Intel i3 with ECC support as they fill the slot below the Xeons (and the Xeons are cheap).

    The reality is that, over time, spinners aren't going to get faster- and even if they do, you don't need many to saturate 10Gbit.

    If you're going to build for faster, well, good luck ;)
     
  11. Hagrid

    Hagrid [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,328
    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    Like my old x99 system in my sig, it's pretty old.

    I guess if somebody has the $$, the Epyc would be good for a long while.
     
  12. N Bates

    N Bates Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    146
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2017
    it's not like the EPYC CPU'a are all expensive, you could pick one up in the uk for just over $300.
     
  13. IdiotInCharge

    IdiotInCharge [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    11,291
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    That's less than expected, but there's also the cost of the board and the cost of filling memory channels there too (though you don't have to fill all of them). Then there's the lower boost clocks and resulting single-core performance.

    But if the cost range is acceptable, it's not like it isn't a solid solution.
     
  14. N Bates

    N Bates Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    146
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2017
    I needed to update my NAS anyhow, so, I might have paid more than I would have if I bought a Ryzen or similar, but this way, I can at least know that the hardware was build for entreprise solutions and will (hopefully) work as it should and be reliable.
     
    IdiotInCharge likes this.
  15. Ready4Dis

    Ready4Dis Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    384
    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2015
    Just a NAS? Could probably run some VMs and set up a home lab of sorts with the spare power.
     
  16. encore2097

    encore2097 [H]Lite

    Messages:
    113
    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2010
    Depends on your client and network file share protocol. If its single threaded (SMB) a higher single core boost would be helpful, if its multithreaded and have many clients more cores (RDMA, NFS, etc.)
     
  17. sirmonkey1985

    sirmonkey1985 [H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010

    Messages:
    21,358
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    i'd probably go with the 7251, can't really see where you'd get a lot of use out of 32 threads on the 7301.

    now if you had an enclosure that could fit 20+ drives then i could definitely see where epyc as a nas platform is an option with the 128 pcie lanes.
     
  18. Ready4Dis

    Ready4Dis Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    384
    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2015
    EPYC 2 is out, pcie 4.0, might need to run dual 100gbps nice or something... And a few nvme 4x 4.0. seriously though, pretty overkill for a nas.
     
    Sulphademus likes this.
  19. IdiotInCharge

    IdiotInCharge [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    11,291
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    At that point, wouldn't that be more of a SAN?
     
  20. Ready4Dis

    Ready4Dis Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    384
    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2015
    Not if it's one machine... I guess your could make a SAN from a single machine, not really sure though.
     
  21. IdiotInCharge

    IdiotInCharge [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    11,291
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    Generally you'd consider a SAN to be more than one, but only because you'd be using the storage for other nodes.
     
  22. Ready4Dis

    Ready4Dis Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    384
    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2015
    He said an enclosure, I assumed it was the same enclosure of the cpu which would be on the network. This is still a NAS, not a SAN from my understanding, although I'm sure there are fuzzy lines all over. Not really sure, depends on config I guess.
     
    IdiotInCharge likes this.
  23. IdiotInCharge

    IdiotInCharge [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    11,291
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    Extremely fuzzy, because the definition of 'SAN' can be stretched to apply to your household Synology. The reason this looks like a SAN to me is that it's set up for doing significant amount of compute work along with server work and lots of virtualization and interconnect expansion. Yeah, maybe not explicitly a SAN until you add another compute node or two, but it's closer to that than a basic NAS, so :).
     
  24. DogsofJune

    DogsofJune 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,550
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2008
    SAN is just NAS backwards..... js
     
  25. Ready4Dis

    Ready4Dis Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    384
    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2015
    Yeah, I guess I never think much on it, I share my hdd in my server with other containers... I don't really consider that a SAN, because it's just mapping straight through. I do consider it a NAS because one of those containers runs samba and shares it on my network. Could probably be considered both I guess; NASSAN or SANNAS? ;)
     
    IdiotInCharge likes this.