Media Server build... struggling with OS choice

[Sexual Chocolate]

This started as a side conversation on AVS but I needed some dedicated input on it.

I built a media server this week (Im proud so you can see pics here) and Im having some OS dilemmas.

I started out by grabbing Server 2008 32bit. There was a beta driver for the Areca card on their site. I was getting lockups every time I started file transfer or doing anything that accessed the NIC/HD (roughly every few minutes would hard lock the server). I assumed it was the cheap $17 Realtek NIC I bought so I yanked it out and put in an Intel NIC. It ran for a few hours and I copied about 1TB of data to the server and finally had a lock up last night. I think the issue is either driver related to the Areca or to some other piece of hardware. I was considering changing OS to Vista 64 or XP 64 but each of them seem to have snags. Im even strongly considering trying out Linux.

Anyway, this "media server" currently does 3 things (and I dont see this changing).

1. File Serving: I have roughly 3TB of FLAC files and 2TB of Mpeg2 rips direct from DVD. I have 4 other desktops and a laptop in the house. One of the desktops is a HTPC that needs seamless access to the movies/music. The other PC's need access as well but just for general file storing (my wifes pics/videos, my sons school work, etc).

2. Tversity: I use Tversity to transcode my movies on the fly to a format compatible with my HR-20 direcTV boxes. The boxes are basically limited media extenders and need a uPNP server running in order to connect.

3. h.264 transcoding: I use AutoMKV (essentially meGUI) to transcode my mpeg2 rips to h.264/AAC. The machine isnt beefy so it takes a few hours to transcode each movie. It requires things like ffdshow, x264, etc etc.

Thats it. Once the h.264 transcoding is done in a few months I dont even plan to keep a monitor hooked to the machine. All my data is stored on a hardware RAID6 using LBA-64bit so I need to be able to read that array.

The driver support for Vista64 seems better for my hardware than x64 (For example Areca has a Storport Vista64 driver but only a Scsiport x64 driver) and apparently Vista uses a newer samba stack and its networking/file sharing is quicker.

x64 however has a smaller footprint and file sharing is definitely simpler since most of my clients are all XP. The machine isnt beefy so the less the OS requires of my gear the better.

Then there is linux... which Im scared to death of and Im pretty sure my transcoding software wont work on it, but everyone talks about how fast it is and how simple it is to create file shares.

Anyway, I know there isnt a best answer but its a Friday and I need good discussion to keep my mind off work

 

[InorganicMatter]

Linux is sorely lacking decent H.264 transcoding tools, so I would avoid that route. That's not to say they don't exist, they just aren't nearly as automated as AutoMKV and Handbrake are, and Linux is missing the coveted AVISynth.

I personally use a Standard 32-bit version of Server 2003. It works great with my RAID card. Maybe try that, Server 2008 is still a very new product, and is going to suffer from a lack of drivers from lazy hardware makers. Areca controllers aren't exactly considered the best, so I'd probably put the fault there. Areca also isn't exactly known for their good Linux support, so consider that as well if you go the Linux route.

 

[Demon10000]

...apparently Vista uses a newer samba stack and its networking/file sharing is quicker.

I would have to disagree on the networking/file sharing being quicker. There are some problems with vista in this aspect. Some relieve has come in the form of SP1, but that isn't even officially out yet, so...

Linux makes a fantastic file server, but it sounds like you've got some pretty specific tools you need to run that aren't compatable. Server 2008 is supposed to be able to run without a GUI, which should free up more resources for you which would benefit you while transcoding.

When I built my media PC I tried many different operating systems and eventually fell back to regular old XP. I went from Ubuntu, to Fedora, to XP, to Vista, to XP, to Server 2003 then back to XP. For me, it came down to cost and compatibility. Everything just worked in XP...

 

[InorganicMatter]

Everything just worked in XP...

If you are doing simple file sharing, yeah, XP might be your best choice. I went with Server 2003 because I have seven people in my family who needed the multiple-Remote-Desktop functionality in Server 2003. My server is the workhorse of the family for audio/video transcoding, as well as being the one computer that has iTunes and everyone syncs their iPods with.

 

[Mithent]

I would have to disagree on the networking/file sharing being quicker. There are some problems with vista in this aspect. Some relieve has come in the form of SP1, but that isn't even officially out yet, so...

Would those affect it as a server, though? I thought that the problems were due to (well-meaning) changes in the client-side network transfer code, changing the way that it requests data from the server.

 

[InorganicMatter]

Would those affect it as a server, though? I thought that the problems were due to (well-meaning) changes in the client-side network transfer code, changing the way that it requests data from the server.

Correct. It was fixed in SP1, and is now the same speed as XP (there's was a front page'd article that explains why XP feels faster, but is actually not).

 

[LhasaCM]

Correct. It was fixed in SP1, and is now the same speed as XP (there's was a front page'd article that explains why XP feels faster, but is actually not).

I'm not too sure it's fixed. I recall seeing some tests that showed, under SP1, file transfers from a server (e.g., 2003) are noticeably faster, but file transfers to a server are the same or even slower. I've run into similar issues moving files to/from my WHS machine...

 

[Sexual Chocolate]

based on my finding so far in this thread, Vista Business 64bit SP1 seems to be the better OS for me right now. It does have a slightly larger footprint than Server 2008, but the drivers and/or configuration of 2008 is holding my RAID card back and causing some instabilities.

I'll try XP64 and possibly 2003 in the next few days and update the benchmarks.