Specs Required for File Server

[Jesse B]

I recently got my home server up and running. Just threw it in a cheap $30 Micro-ATX tower. It's fine for now. However, I'm considering upgrading to a rackmount system with a couple different rigs running, just because that's what I want Mind you, this will happen as money permits, which I don't have an abundance of at this point in time (hopefully sooner than later though). Anyways, on to my actual questions.

The first rig will be my file server. This needs to be cheap, energy efficient, and powerful enough to do everything I want it to. It will be file serving (duh) and streaming music over the network for sure. These are the main requirements. I may get it to stream video to my PS3, but I'm still undecided on that. It's a definite possibility though. I was originally planning on building this rig, but I have found some barebones servers that are cheaper to buy than they would be for me to build myself. They are the following:

http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816101262
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816101332
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816101364

Would any of these be capable of streaming video (some HD content, some SD; nothing greater than 720p in all likelihood)? If so, which are up for the task, and which aren't?

Next, I'll have my VM rig (which I already have the majority of hardware for), which will run various machines such as a web server for development, and probably a Windows installation for CAD and whatnot (run Linux on my computers). This I don't really need help with, just outlining what I plan on running. I'm planning on getting a rackmount gigabit switch on top of this as well.

Anyways, thanks for reading,


- Jesse

 

[Gambit]

I'm not a raid guru by any means, but I'm going to assume you're looking to form a software RAID array for the fileserver based in linux. What I'd be worried about is how well the atom processor will handle calculating the parity for the array as well as the noise. 1U servers aren't really big and depending on the heat generated, the fans may be going nuts trying to cool the drives.

 

[Blue Fox]

I'm not a raid guru by any means, but I'm going to assume you're looking to form a software RAID array for the fileserver based in linux. What I'd be worried about is how well the atom processor will handle calculating the parity for the array as well as the noise. 1U servers aren't really big and depending on the heat generated, the fans may be going nuts trying to cool the drives.

They can't use RAID. The cases won't fit more than one drive.

If you really think you are saving money by buying one of those, you are mistaken. You can build a much more capable (more than one drive for a start) for less than any of the barebones that you posted. Granted, it will be bigger and use a bit more power, but it will do a much better job.

 

[Jesse B]

Fair enough. Alright, well if I were to build my own rig, would an atom setup suffice, or should I just go another route entirely? The price/power consumption was tempting, but I dunno.

 

[Blue Fox]

For just streaming video, it should be enough. For transcoding it on the fly? Probably not. The difference in cost/power consumption of say a Core i3 and an Atom really isn't that great and you'll get much more flexibility out of an 1156 board.

 

[pjkenned]

For just streaming video, it should be enough. For transcoding it on the fly? Probably not. The difference in cost/power consumption of say a Core i3 and an Atom really isn't that great and you'll get much more flexibility out of an 1156 board.

This is very true. Realistically, the super-cheap Atom boards with the NM10 and only 2 SATA ports are not what most people want from a NAS device. Once you get to something higher-end, you start getting to the point that price differential gets to be much smaller.

 

[Jesse B]

How does one hyper-threaded Intel core compare to two regular AMD cores? The AMD CPUs seem to be quite a bit cheaper, even matching threads to cores. I've always been an Intel guy, but I see no reason why this wouldn't be a better bang for my buck?

 

[Gambit]

They can't use RAID. The cases won't fit more than one drive.

Doh, I was reading the number of SATA ports, not the number of bays. Was thinking "wtf? how're they fitting 4 drives in a 1U server that size?"

 

[athlon1.2]

Fair enough. Alright, well if I were to build my own rig, would an atom setup suffice, or should I just go another route entirely? The price/power consumption was tempting, but I dunno.

I think you should consider some of the low-power "regular" CPU options. AMD has 45 watt dual core Athlons and 55 watt dual-core Opteron HE. There's nothing in desktop Core2 (there's exactly ONE motherboard that supports laptop Intel CPU, but its the same change the Atom faces -- very limited expansion) that approaches this with the lowest power Core2 being 65 watts.

There's some low power Xeon but you will end up paying more for the motherboard & ECC RAM. The only multicore Intel CPU with a 775 socket I am aware of is the Xeon L3403.... there's one on eBay for $170 right now, you're better off getting a $70 core2 since the TCO won't break even for a while.

Why can't they make Atom boards with multiple PCI & PCI-E slots? I've come across ONE but the TDP on the chipset was something like 5x the CPU TDP.

I think this is the best bang for your buck: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103908 if you are looking for a cheap, decently powerful CPU and want to conserve energy. $45 dual core 45 watts.

 

[Jesse B]

I think I'm just gonna use my current hardware that I'm running for my server and underclock the CPU a tad. I was originally gonna use it for my other rig, but I'd rather spend the money to get that machine better. Server specs are in signature. Still curious as to the Threads vs. Cores thing, as I've never really heard a definitive answer as to which is superior.

Thanks guys,


- Jesse

 

[pjkenned]

I think you should consider some of the low-power "regular" CPU options. AMD has 45 watt dual core Athlons and 55 watt dual-core Opteron HE. There's nothing in desktop Core2 (there's exactly ONE motherboard that supports laptop Intel CPU, but its the same change the Atom faces -- very limited expansion) that approaches this with the lowest power Core2 being 65 watts.

The AMD dual core is going to be faster than an Atom dual core no doubt. With that being said, a Core i3-530 will be faster than an Athlon II X2 and use less power at idle (not taking into account low TDP parts). Remember, you can't really compare a Core i3 to a Athlon II TDP because the Core i3's TDP includes the northbridge/ GPU in that power envelope.

There's some low power Xeon but you will end up paying more for the motherboard & ECC RAM. The only multicore Intel CPU with a 775 socket I am aware of is the Xeon L3403.... there's one on eBay for $170 right now, you're better off getting a $70 core2 since the TCO won't break even for a while.

Not sure why stuck on LGA 775 which is 1-2 generation old tech? Newer CPUs use a lot less power. Especially at idle. Most low-cost consumer motherboards do not use Intel NICs so that is always a consideration. Low TDP chips tend to help a lot more under load but most people's home servers sit in idle CPU state a very high percentage of the time.

Why can't they make Atom boards with multiple PCI & PCI-E slots? I've come across ONE but the TDP on the chipset was something like 5x the CPU TDP.

Lack of PCIe lanes in the platform? Atoms were really made for netbooks let's not forget.

I think this is the best bang for your buck: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103908 if you are looking for a cheap, decently powerful CPU and want to conserve energy. $45 dual core 45 watts.

Good CPU, good pricing (it is an AMD chip of course).

 

[darkeen]

I think I'm just gonna use my current hardware that I'm running for my server and underclock the CPU a tad. I was originally gonna use it for my other rig, but I'd rather spend the money to get that machine better. Server specs are in signature. Still curious as to the Threads vs. Cores thing, as I've never really heard a definitive answer as to which is superior.

Thanks guys,


- Jesse

Cores. SMT (hyperthreading) makes each core work a little better but if it comes down to a dual core sans SMT vs a single core with SMT go for the dual core every time. All equal of course.

 

[Jesse B]

Cores. SMT (hyperthreading) makes each core work a little better but if it comes down to a dual core sans SMT vs a single core with SMT go for the dual core every time. All equal of course.

Awesome, thanks! I've been curious about that comparison for quite some time.

 

[pjkenned]

Cores. SMT (hyperthreading) makes each core work a little better but if it comes down to a dual core sans SMT vs a single core with SMT go for the dual core every time. All equal of course.

Within reason, of course. For example, a single core Sempron 140 will encode x264 video with Handbrake faster than an Atom D510 dual core with hyperthreading. A newer Core i5-650 (dual core with HT) will do the same task faster than a quad core Q6600 (no HT). Architectures and clock speeds play a big role here.

 

[Jesse B]

Within reason, of course. For example, a single core Sempron 140 will encode x264 video with Handbrake faster than an Atom D510 dual core with hyperthreading. A newer Core i5-650 (dual core with HT) will do the same task faster than a quad core Q6600 (no HT). Architectures and clock speeds play a big role here.

Makes sense. Obviously higher clock speed makes a difference, and the newer architectures will be (should be at least ) faster than the older ones. Thanks guys.

 

[GeorgeHR]

Jesse B ---

Perhaps the most important issue is finding a power supply that is efficient at the power output you need.

I have old power supplies that appear to be over 80% efficient when used with a 45w or 65w cpu, a modest video card and several hard drives. Cpus in that power range are sufficient to handle my needs.

With power consumption of 100-150w I am happy with the cost of leaving the system on 24/7.

 

[Jesse B]

Jesse B ---

Perhaps the most important issue is finding a power supply that is efficient at the power output you need.

I have old power supplies that appear to be over 80% efficient when used with a 45w or 65w cpu, a modest video card and several hard drives. Cpus in that power range are sufficient to handle my needs.

With power consumption of 100-150w I am happy with the cost of leaving the system on 24/7.

The supply I'm looking at is 80 Plus Bronze. The system I have planned out shouldn't draw too much power. After making a few calculations, the cost to keep it running is low enough for me to be happy

Using the hardware I have kicking around now (plus the additions I plan on making), here's what the calculator I used calculated:

50% TDP / 60% Load - 63W - $38.63/Year - $3.22/Month

Obviously those are just estimates. I couldn't bring it any lower than 60% Load, so it could possibly be even cheaper (although I'm still fine with how much it costs). That isn't even underclocked either.