StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I'm building a personal file/web server hopefully for under $1500. It will be connected to Charter's (cable internet) 10mbit down/1mbit up line.


Requirements (assume these requirements must be met simultaneously):

• 1. Data storage of at least a few hundred of GB of data in a safe and reliable manner without sacrificing performance
  2. Transmit multimedia files for remote viewing LAN connection
  3. Upload requested files and web content over 1mbit line
  4. Compress multimedia files (video, audio) between various formats and compressions

Ideas for solutions:


1. Data storage:

• a.) Feature: 5-disk RAID-5 solution with 5 hard drives (4 content, 1 parity). 250GB per hard drive would be ideal. A SATA II 3.0Gbps interface and 7200RPM is the cheapest solution, so that's what the hard drives will be.
  b.) Product: Four Western Digital Caviar RE WD2500YS 250GB Hard Drives, and one currently-owned Western Digital Caviar 300GB Hard Drive for parity.
  c.) Bandwidth: 3.0Gbps (375MBps) on the interface is plenty. Each of those four hard drives can do 70MBps sustained buffer-to-platter.

2. Transmit multimedia over LAN

• a.) Feature: 1000mbps LAN is default on nearly all decent motherboards.
  b.) Product: Built-in 1000mbps LAN controller into unknown motherboard. D-Link DIR-655 4-Port Gigabit Wireless-N Router
  c.) Bandwidth: I have the DIR-655 Wireless-N router, 4 ports Gigabit Ethernet RJ-45. I *think* it can handle 1000mbps total sustained throughput, but I haven't checked. Two other computers will be also connected to it on 1000mbps lines, and one laptop on Wireless-N (less than 300mbps). At the most, two people will be sharing that bandwidth.

3. File/Web content upload to Internet

• a.) Feature: Upload content over decently good upstream cable line.
  b.) Product: Charter 10mbps down/1mbps at $50/month is what I have, and is the fastest available out here.
  c.) Bandwidth: 1mbps (125KBps) is the best I can get. For low-traffic web server, it should be fine.

4. Compress multimedia

• a.) Feature: Compress multimedia while transmitting content over LAN and the Internet. May require quad-core processor, and maybe 4GB RAM.
  b.) Product: CPU and Motherboard unknown (see issues below). 4GB of RAM as appropriate for the CPU and Motherboard.
  c.) Bandwidth: 1066MHz FSB total. Should be plenty.

Issue #1: AMD Opteron Quad or Intel Core 2 Quad / Xeon Quad?

So which one do I get? Newegg has just posted the new Opteron 2344HE 1.7GHz for $239 and the 2346HE 1.8GHz for $299.

On the other hand, Intel has their Q6600 2.4GHz for $279 and their X3220 2.4GHz for $299. I hear they can easily be overclocked to 3.2-3.4GHz.

I have no idea how these Opterons stack up for the tasks I'll need them to do.




Issue #2: Motherboard and features.

In search of the cheapest solution, ideally I would like a motherboard with:

• 1. A good RAID controller capable of AT LEAST a 5-disk RAID-5 configuration, preferably 8-disk for future expansion
  2. An integrated graphics card with DVI output, capable of 1900x1200 resolution.

Now, I've searched high and low, and I could not find a solid board with those features.

So I'm willing to consider a motherboard that contains a decent integrated 5-disk (or more) RAID-5 controller, and I'll just tack on a $100 graphics card myself. This is the preferable, cheap solution.

If that's not practical, I guess I can get a motherboard that has an integrated graphics card, but I would need to know of a good 5-disk (8-disk would be better) RAID-5 controller card for a decent (below $300) price. This is the expensive solution.


Also, if anyone has any build recommendations, please post them here.

On the other hand, Intel has their Q6600 2.4GHz for $279 and their X3220 2.4GHz for $299. I hear they can easily be overclocked to 3.2-3.4GHz.

I have the Q6600 and it works great with no overclocking, and my computer just plays games which mostly cant use all the cores to begin with.. However you'll find that the price on the things changes from day to day; and they sometimes cost as much as 320 bucks.

You really should look into 500 gig drives, they generally offer much better prices for the capacity.

Yeah, with 500GB drives you could do just three drives in that RAID-5 and get the same capacity.

What's with the "feature/product/bandwidth" format? Besides which, the FSB speed wouldn't be the appropriate measure for 'bandwidth' for a CPU for your purposes anyway; for that you'd probably be looking at the rate at which it can compress and transmit your multimedia data.

Also what's going on with the compression stuff? What exactly is being done to the material and how is it being used by whoever it's being transmitted to?

I'm building a personal file/web server hopefully for under $1500.

1. Data storage of at least a few hundred of GB of data in a safe and reliable manner without sacrificing performance

a.) Feature: 5-disk RAID-5 solution with 5 hard drives (4 content, 1 parity).

Generally, you're not going to find motherboards with "good" built-in RAID controllers, unless you're purchasing big huge expensive server boards, and even then those are generally going to be SCSI or SAS controllers so you'd be pooched anyway.

Well, for hardware RAID cards, this one can handle up to four drives. This card will handle your projected eight-drive expansion.

Any cheap card which claims to do RAID-5 is going to incur a hit on the CPU; the cards I've listed are examples of hardware RAID cards which will actually do most of the gruntwork and leave your CPU free for your compression stuff, whatever that is...



Maybe you should be more precise about what you're doing (like what this is actually being used for, and what environment this is going to be for; half-assing it is awesome for home but horrible for a business environment) and then we can provide suggestions which can better address your needs.

He did say personal file/web server

4GB of RAM seems overkill for a mere file/media encoding server, though w/ low RAM prices nowadays....

Generally onboard motherboard RAID is software based anyway, so if you're using Linux you're better w/ Linux's built-in software-RAID, w/ 4 cores performance impact should be negligible
http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/30/184256

Use WHS. Viola, no need to use RAID-5. Alternatively, use ZFS on a Linux. Third option is use a hardware card. You're not going to be able to find a MB with high RAID capability.

Use 500GB drives. They're the sweet spot for GB/$ right now. Core 2s are your best bet, and if it's a home machine, don't get the Xeon.

Pretty much any graphics card can do 1920x1200 in 2D these days, even integrated cards.

Why do you need such a high resolution on a *server*? Is it also an HTPC?

Also, ZFS isn't available on Linux, you'll need solaris, but soft-RAID and LVM do the same.

Do you need to transcode/stream on the fly or something to need such a powerful CPU?

Uraniun235 wrote:What's with the "feature/product/bandwidth" format?

I was trying out a way to organize what I want and what that translated to.

Uraniun235 wrote:Also what's going on with the compression stuff? What exactly is being done to the material and how is it being used by whoever it's being transmitted to?

It's for a home environment, what I'm envisioning is that it would be capable of re-coding HD video files from MPEG-2 to H.264, while at the same time either streaming video over the LAN to another computer for playback, or outputting video to my PTV, where the 1900x1200 requirement would come in. I think those would be the most hardware-intensive processes. Beyond those, it would be a general file and web server.

Uraniun235 wrote:Maybe you should be more precise about what you're doing (like what this is actually being used for, and what environment this is going to be for; half-assing it is awesome for home but horrible for a business environment) and then we can provide suggestions which can better address your needs.

In addition to the above, I also want to toy around with things such as O/S virtualization, IIS 7, ASP.NET, and network administration. In other words, it would also be kind of an "experimental" server for me, so I can learn by trial-and-error and DIY. I can get Windows Server 2003 Enterprise from MSDNAA and I just downloaded Windows Server 2008 Enterprise RC0 from Microsoft. For the next 6 months, I'd like to focus on the Windows world more than Unix/Linux, to help me get the MCSA before May 2008 (and later the MCSE).

lukexcom wrote:It's for a home environment, what I'm envisioning is that it would be capable of re-coding HD video files from MPEG-2 to H.264, while at the same time either streaming video over the LAN to another computer for playback, or outputting video to my PTV, where the 1900x1200 requirement would come in. I think those would be the most hardware-intensive processes. Beyond those, it would be a general file and web server.

Oh boy, you're going to need a lot of CPU power for this. H.264 encoding (heck, even decoding) is extremely compute-intensive, nevermind trying to output 1080p!

Beowulf wrote:Use WHS. Viola, no need to use RAID-5. Alternatively, use ZFS on a Linux. Third option is use a hardware card. You're not going to be able to find a MB with high RAID capability.

ZFS on Linux is a no-go since you have to go through FUSE (performance hit!). Solaris is really the only realistic solution for that. Linux's software RAID-5 solution isn't bad, either, though obviously not optimal. WHS is also pretty good, but he doesn't want to use it.

Uraniun235 wrote:Well, for hardware RAID cards, this one can handle up to four drives. This card will handle your projected eight-drive expansion.

3ware is very good, but he might want to consider hot-swap SATA bays and maybe a hotspare drive if he's serious about this.