PDA

View Full Version : building a server

ripken204
09-23-2005, 09:43 AM
im making a server
http://frontiernet.net/~unholyknights/computers/cyberpunkusserver.htm
please tell me what u think, max price is 1000$
it is going to be a file server with around 150ppl connected at a time
faruquehabib
09-23-2005, 10:02 AM
maybe a bigger hard drive, thats all. rest looks good to me
ripken204
09-23-2005, 11:11 AM
250gigs is about all i need for now, doesnt cost too much for one and its extremely easy to upgrade
Noxis
09-23-2005, 11:19 AM
Everthing looks good but this is a server, with a fair few people connected at the same time - i'd suggest looking at raid options and breaking the 250gb up into smaller drives in Raid5. Raid5 = more spindals.
ripken204
09-23-2005, 11:36 AM
ive been thinking of that too, but i also want to have sataII and sataII and raid5 arnt possible asfaik, until that new dfi board comes out at least.
IFMU
09-23-2005, 11:43 AM
Looks like you have it pretty well covered overall. CPU speed looks good, 2 gigs of memory, which will be the biggest thing needed, large PSU to handle system easy.
The one thing I would be curious about would be HDD speed/access in your configuration. I would have to agree with the previous post. I would look at some sort of RAID. Increase the access/read/write that you might need for a server. As stated, a RAID 5 would be alot better than a single drive. Even a RAID0 would be an improvement of a single disk. Otherwise, looks good.
Supertim0r
09-23-2005, 02:34 PM
maybe a 3800+ X2 ? but...it would cost +1000$
ripken204
09-23-2005, 02:56 PM
its a file server, so i shouldnt need a dual core cpu
fareastgq
09-23-2005, 03:07 PM
a raptor would be nice for a server
goodcooper
09-23-2005, 03:31 PM
you should get raid 5,
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813130484
instead of asus board

the redundancy and performance gains are great...

to tell you the truth, the difference between sata and sata2 is negligible at best, and a raid 5 array with 4 discs will outperform a single sata2 drive any day of the week... (not to mention the fault tolerance)


i'd spend a bit more and get 4 160s, or 80s if cost is an issue...

that'd give you 480 or 240 gigs respectively, but oh so worth it

if you need to save money, shave off a gig of ram

also, not sure what you're doing about OS, winxp/2000 would probably work fine but i'd thought i'd pass this on:
http://www.surpluscomputers.com/store/Main.aspx?p=ItemDetail&item=SWW12429

good OS, configured for network transfer...

to take use of any more server than that, you'd need gigabit switches/ workstation nics
Noxis
09-23-2005, 03:36 PM
Personally choice of OS for a file server is a no brainer, FreeBSD :) However that may not be an option (Unix SysAdmin by profession at v.large UK ISP.)
i found nemo
09-23-2005, 04:47 PM
i'd say any x2 with 1mb l2 per core tha's ur best performance :) then o/c that bad boy
ripken204
09-23-2005, 05:20 PM
i actually have the msi board in my current machine, i can put that into the server and nows my excuse to get the dfi nfr ultra. then ill prolly get raid5. thx
goodcooper
09-23-2005, 05:53 PM
Personally choice of OS for a file server is a no brainer, FreeBSD :) However that may not be an option (Unix SysAdmin by profession at v.large UK ISP.)
sometimes a bit more hard to configure and maintain, especially when you're a n00b to nix

there are also pre-configured samba packages for your favorite flavor, but win2k3 for 120 bucks is a good deal, remote desktop that sucker and its done...

i've set small file/web/ftp and other simple servers up like this a lot, on the cheap... stick it in a closet somewhere and config it to be remotedesktoped into, and you're all set


i actually have the msi board in my current machine, i can put that into the server and nows my excuse to get the dfi nfr ultra. then ill prolly get raid5. thx


lol thats a page outa my book, i do that kind of stuff all the time
nn_step
09-23-2005, 08:23 PM
the facts are as a server you don't need good graphics or heavily featured mobo..
I suggest that you get on the of the new nVidia mATX mobos..
and a steel case would be a better choice endurance wise...
IFMU
09-23-2005, 08:39 PM
I wouldnt drop the amount of memory, that, I would keep up there. Memory and HDD access speeds are what you need the most in a file server. I cant put in my 2 cents for OS, but the hardware side I would stick pretty much with what you have overall and get a RAID for the HDD's.
goodcooper
09-23-2005, 10:16 PM
the MSI board he's planning on has RAID5, which is the key feature, its not easy to find a pci raid 5 card, most will be pcix...

either way, they will probably run the cost of the msi board anyway...

i think you've got it the way you want it now, raid 5s

only other thing i'd say, is get a card that doesn't take any ram from the system (or make sure you don't enable TC (i.e. give it any more mem)
for pcie workstations i've been using the cheapest x300se i could find that wasn't hypermemory, truthfully its overkill, but whatever
elec999
09-23-2005, 11:23 PM
Why you need such a good cpu for a server. Isnt the sempron 64s good enough, just suggesting.
Thanks
nn_step
09-24-2005, 01:42 AM
the MSI board he's planning on has RAID5, which is the key feature, its not easy to find a pci raid 5 card, most will be pcix...

either way, they will probably run the cost of the msi board anyway...

i think you've got it the way you want it now, raid 5s

only other thing i'd say, is get a card that doesn't take any ram from the system (or make sure you don't enable TC (i.e. give it any more mem)
for pcie workstations i've been using the cheapest x300se i could find that wasn't hypermemory, truthfully its overkill, but whatever
I don't believe raid 5 is advicable for a server.. Raid 1 would be a safer bet...
Jamo
09-24-2005, 06:54 AM
I don't believe raid 5 is advicable for a server.. Raid 1 would be a safer bet...

i disagree, raid 5 is the way to go as you can still lose one drive and it'll keep working and give much greater performance than raid 1
goodcooper
09-24-2005, 02:54 PM
it won't keep working, you must add another drive and rebuild array...

but yes, it is fault tolerant, and the performance is much better
ripken204
09-24-2005, 03:46 PM
well i guess ill be going raid 5 then. what hdds would u guys recommend for this? what vid card should i switch to? and how much/what ram should i get? I HAVE ALSO MOVED BY BUDGET UP TO $1500

the msi k8n neo4 also supports 0+1, nv raid, which means i can use sataII. what are your thought on this?

or i could have raid10 on the regular sata 150
ugotd8
09-24-2005, 04:22 PM
I'd chose another case. I have built systems in two of those CoolerMaster Centurion cases. You give yourself no room for growth. Also, the intake fan that doubles as the hard drive cooler is only 80mm. With any more than 1 drive the measly air flow provided by the 80mm fan is blocked to the point of non-existence. The hard drives will run hotter than you will like. Don't get me wrong, there is room in that case, I fit a ThermalTake Big Typhoon in one. But in the long run, my opinion would be to get a roomier case.

The MSI K8N Neo4 Ultra Platinum is a good choice for a fileserver. Lots of SATA/RAID/IDE options. Note that they advertise 8 SATA ports for that board, if you do not use RAID, you can only use 4 of the SATA ports. The other 4 SATA ports on the Silicon Image controller only work in RAID configuration.

I can't speak for XP, but I'm using XP 64-bit and I had to un-install the Nvidia IDE/SATA drivers because of poor performance. The standard issue XP IDE drivers outperformed the Nvidia drivers 2-1. Now if you are going to use RAID, that's a completely different story, you'll probably have to install the Nvidia SATA RAID drivers.


[EDIT] AND, the 80mm intake fan cannot be replaced with a 120mm, no room.
computerman0416
09-24-2005, 06:59 PM
In my opinion, you are not building a server. It looks like a desktop machine to me. Servers generally are dual processors or more and multiple hard drives in RAID configuration.

Here is my server (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=37129).

Server specs listed below.
eliminate
09-24-2005, 07:25 PM
Well, I kinda agree on what computerman0416 is saying. Yes there are servers that run dual processor, server motherboards, and SCSI HDs, but it all depends on what you are running it for and in your case a file server. With a fileserver it is good to have dual processors, good fast ECC backed RAM, SCSIs in RAID configurations, and no graphics acceleration at all. I would go with computerman in saying that this is an average desktop machine and not a server. If I were you, I would go with a dual core Opteron (Lowest Model), 2 GB of ECC Registered RAM, a fair Opteron motherboard (even the MSI Master FAR-2 will do) two 300GB IDE HDs in a RAID 1 configuration, and no graphics card (because you really do not need one for file serving).

I think you are just a little mislead on what to buy for a server compared to a regular desktop
nn_step
09-24-2005, 07:45 PM
The MSI K8N Neo4 Ultra Platinum is a good choice for a fileserver. Lots of SATA/RAID/IDE options. Note that they advertise 8 SATA ports for that board, if you do not use RAID, you can only use 4 of the SATA ports. The other 4 SATA ports on the Silicon Image controller only work in RAID configuration.
[EDIT] AND, the 80mm intake fan cannot be replaced with a 120mm, no room.
MSI K8N Neo4 platinum isn't a server board it is a gaming board and besides PCI sata raid cards lets him change mobo/cpu without having to do anything fancy for the transfer...
eliminate
09-24-2005, 07:52 PM
yeah nn_step is correct about this one. You definately do not want to choose a gaming motherboard for file serving. Usually gaming motherboards have horrible regulators and lack of sufficient parts that can stay stable 24/7. On every motherboard you can change the RAID configuration to either enable RAID or disable RAID on the extra ports.
nn_step
09-24-2005, 08:01 PM
Oh and you should get on of those opteron 144s and some ECC ram just to make sure that it is completely stable..
*edit you don't need to do this but I like ECC for servers...
goodcooper
09-24-2005, 08:09 PM
the board is fine, its a file server, FILESERVER, which means any more than one processor is OVERKILL, its all in the drive interface...

you could concievably use sata2 drives, but you then lose the RAID5 ability, that was the point of that board, its got RAID5, sil 3114

do a bit of research and see the difference between a regular SATA drive and a 'SATA2' drive, the performance difference is marginal...

i say for drives, if heat/noise is an issue, buy samsungs, otherwise just get seagates, you can't go wrong with a 5 year warranty...

anything more than 1 gig is overkill, dam 512megs is enough...

you wouldn't tell the difference between a sempron 2400+ with 512 megs of ram from a 3000+ athlon and 2 gigs if you had raid 5s, i mean, next time you are copying lots of files from your computer to another, take a look at the memory and cpu usage....

then listen to your hard disks... its all in the hard disks man...

you can only shove so much data through a 100 mbps port anyhow, and say you have a gigabit switch, then what? if its an office like most, all the workstations will have 100 mbps cards in them anyway...