RAID5 file server build advice

[__Miguel_]

Btw, one thing I've been thinking (run for the hills! lol): RAID controllers are basically dedicated CPUs and memory for the parity calculations (not even needed when reading, unless if the array is cripled). Also, it's very clear that parity calculation takes a fraction of today's CPUs computing power (see the links I posted a while back).

So, my point is, since there are usually no backup bateries on CPUs like there are on hardware RAID controllers, to keep data from being lost after a power outage, software RAID most likely calculates parity for every block written, and sends it immediately to the drive, to minimize data loss, without even considering storing it on RAM. This, of course, creates abismal performance for software RAID, when it could actually be the fastest configuration available...

So, am I too off on this? I don't think so...

Also, would it be possible to rewrite Intel or Microsoft's RAID driver to actually use system RAM as cache, before sending the data to the array? This would open up insane performance boosts on software RAID...

Well, besides quoting myself (which is always weird to begin with), I have a little update on the whole "software RAID" vs. "hardware RAID" performance, and the why we see so different performances between them.

Granted, a dedicated CPU will always be better than a several times faster generic CPU. However, I've found an interesting controller which almost answers the questions I've risen on my last post.

For those who don't know what the hell I'm talking about, check here and here. The thing is, apparently there is one company which is trying to do exactly what I've been talking about: getting a generic purpose CPU to do the work of those I/O processors on the dedicated cards. The name of the company is RAIDCore, with its 4000 (apparently, not that good) and 5000 (just released) series controllers, and (most important) also the Intel (AMD on the works) driver replacement.

And guess what, its performance is not that bad, because instead of only pulling the absolute minimum CPU they can, they kinda go wild on that. If my readings are correct, the 4000 series cards could pack quite a punch, even when competing with dedicated I/O processor cards...

The only thing missing seems to be the cache. Cached writes with XOR-enabled and cache-enabled cards are through the roof, and that is very important with parity RAID levels. I've read that the RAIDCore cards could actually support cache, only there aren't any available models with that option (probably because of price concerns: a 4-port RAIDCore + software costs around €85, cache would at least double it). I just hoped there was an option to use the system RAM as cache, like IGPs do... it shouldn't be too hard, and the performance would be impressive...

So, what are your thoughts about this one? I might consider one of these, since a 4-port card with the special software is impressively cheap here (€85 is very nice, and the software itself is said to retail for $50, so...), and, combined with an ICHxR (presumably, ICH8R, ICH9R and ICH10R, because of the aparent 6-port requirement), I'd be able to go to a 10-drive array in no time, with support for a lot of interesting combos (like a kind of Matrix RAID, but with 10 drives). Only thing really missing for added safety is RAID-6, but I'm guessing it will be added to the software, sooner or later.

Also, another question. since I don't really need SATA for the system drive, since I won't be using an optic drive (except for the OS install, that is...), and since the IDE controller would be left there sitting, would it be a good idea to go IDE with the system drive? Like a WD1600AABS (IDE variant of the AAJS, I think)?

Cheers.

Miguel

[Xcel]

Very interesting stuff, I might be looking into the possibility of getting a hardware raid controller. I've kinda lost faith in the onboard controller... But I can't afford really expensive ones

[__Miguel_]

Very interesting stuff, I might be looking into the possibility of getting a hardware raid controller. I've kinda lost faith in the onboard controller... But I can't afford really expensive ones

Well, AFAIK "hardware RAID controller" and "affordable" aren't usually on the same sentence. Unless, of course, there is a "not" right before the "affordable" part... hehehe

The 8-port Areca and 3ware (as well as others) XOR-based controllers that have been discussed here are very expensive devices. Even 4-port controllers are not that cheap. The XOR engine and cache sends the price sky high...

Integrated is rather weird. Performance is also lacking, especially with random writes in parity arrays (more so because caching is not available, as I said).

The only apparently "heh" software-based RAID seems to be RAIDCore's Fulcrum engine, which allows the ICHxR ports to benefit from the same advantages of RAIDCore cards (like easy migration, even between systems, and also very nice expandability, up to 32 drives - currently only up to 14, since there are only 4 and 8-port cards available, plus the ICHxR's 6 ports).

I'd wait for some input from the experts on the subject, though.

Cheers.

Miguel

[XS Janus]

Well I just picked up my 3ware 9650SE 8port + a BBU module from the dealer today and I still can't believe I payed that much for it.
And I thought gfx cards were expensive.
I payed 650$ for it and that is without local VAT. Online it was finding them as low as 450$, but I decided against import this time. (so I can hassle them locally if need be )
But anyway I want to make this build "proper" and investing in 8 1TB drives in the near future it should be worth it.
If I were to build a RAID with cheap 320-500GB drives and going for less than 8 than I don't believe I could justify spending that much more just so they could sit happy on a hardware controller.

My mobo is back from RMA so I will try and fiddle with it this weekend if I get the chance and find a working spare sata drive laying around.
Next week I will try and buy 4xWD1000FYPS drives to get this thing started.
Hopefully I won't fry anything in the meantime.

[__Miguel_]

Online it was finding them as low as 450$, but I decided against import this time. (so I can hassle them locally if need be )

Seriously, that was SOOOO funny.

Btw, my whole NAS system will probably be cheaper than that card alone... (currently on the €400~€500 range) hehe

Good luck with the build. Do post (here or on a new thread) pictures of it.

Cheers.

Miguel

[XS Janus]

[XS Janus]

Everything survived the first boot
Presently hooked up on DIY bench/case/table
First pics:



Tomorrow I will test the drive enclosures if they work O.K.
My current lack of HDDs is killing me. Just an 80gb sata seagate was found

[i found nemo]

it's so .... beautiful

[__Miguel_]

Very nice stuff! I particularly like the two-port multiplexer on the RAID controller. I'd always wondered how those coneectors worked, now I know :P

I'm guessing that thing is going to be a beast when you fill it up with those 8x1TB drives (and somewhat silent too, oddly enough... hehe). What are you using for CPU? Not a Quad, right? Right? Please tell me you have a scrawny E1200, 2xxx Dually, or even a Celly under there...

Also, do comment on my "finding" and "IDE doubt", please.

Cheers.

Miguel

[XS Janus]

I must say I would really like to see more controllers that do their parity calculations on CPU, as the solutions you mentioned do.
What I also dont understand is why dont they make use of the RAM cause that would make all the difference if implemented the right way.
I find it funny when you see how expensive all this RAID hardware is and how buggy it can be. Yet all this issues remain pretty silent.
Just think. data crashes on you... you complain... slow responses, horror, slow/no solutions. On the other hand you have gfx cards just as expensive and when there is a small bug (like picture quality in game etc.) the Internet BLOWS UP with talk about it. Unfair. But so the market stands.

My guess is this: since there is a growing need for fileservers in homes and small business, RAID5/6 solutions on cards Miguel mentioned will become more wanted for such environments. I mean todays CPUs and RAM are just sitting there in fileservers.In more demanding server applications, not so much,so a dedicated XOR on raid card will be preferable.

Qs: How much are the new RAIDcore 5xxx series cards? Do you have to have one to use the software combined with onboard controller or can you just buy the their software for use with onboard and maybe even combined with a different sata controller?
In your place I wouldn't think about using onboard ports to much. It is a cool idea, but mixing technologies doesn't sound right in some way.

What you want when going for a RAID card is being able to move all the drives to you next system with as less risk as possible. God knows how 4 disks on controller + 6 onboard on the same array would behave.
I wouldn't like to exeriment and find out when the going gets tough.

Can you span the Raidcore controllers?
Maybe you can buy 1x4port now and expand the array with another if needed. You can always make another array separate on a new controller you buy.

If onboard RAID and Raidcore software developers would work more on allowing good parity calcs and RAM as write cache to be used then onboard RAID has a good use in other things than RAID0.
Just think: maybe they could even offer additional ports extenders for mobo.
Like they do/did for USB. Why not?

Regarding IDE drive. I don't see why not to use it. If you don't have any ports free Ide I as goo as any of them for simple task as system drive in fileserver. If the model you mentioned is the same as the sata one then all the better.

Right now I have a E8200 CPU sitting in it
I dont know If I will keep it that way. I bought it to test the power consumption of the new CPUs
Bare system right now it is at 60W. That seems a bit high for such a bare system at the moment, but we'll see what can be done with underclocking and other optimisations
Adding a controller adds ~15W!

If I come across a new dual celly I would be currious to see how much less W would that mean vs, underclocked 8200.

Interesting days ahead I will post any updates and my findings.

[XS Janus]

Well I see that 8port Raidcore 5xxx is 250-300$
And that is cool at first glance but add to that a better CPU and RAM if they make that work and you come pretty close to a price point of proven products.
I guess it's all about how experimental you feel and can allow yourself to be.
I thing the tech is not yet mature.
Maybe it will be in time for SSD fileserver

[Buckeye]

Janus you brought up something I didn't think about with those pictures (there are a lot of things I don't think about Ha !).

Currently on my new build I have 1 MTRON 32GB Pro SSD for step 1 of the build. SSD is purchased and here now.

After build is completed and tests done if it looks like I want to boost performance my next step would be a Raid 0 with 2 or more SSD's.

The Raid Card I was planning on using is Areca ARC-1231ML SATA

I had not noticed the battery backup card that you showed in the pictures. Does the one that I listed have that also ?

This will be for a game machine so I do not think that battery backup will be needed ?

This is my hardware list so far, all sitting here waiting on the phase unit to be finished.

Silverstone TJ07
QX9650
EVGA 132-CK-NF79-A1 LGA 775 NVIDIA nForce 790i Ultra SLI ATX Intel Motherboard
2 each EVGA GeForce 9800 GX2 1GB 512-bit GDDR3
G.SKILL 4GB(2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 Dual Channel
Thermaltake Toughpower 1200W
HITACHI Deskstar 1TB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive
MTRON 32GB Pro SSD for OS
SS Phase cooler by Jin

[XS Janus]

Realistically, going for a hardware controller just for RAID0 is an overkill, you will not see any tangible performance gains from onboard setup.
RAID0 is simple and doesn't involve any complex calculations as RAID5/6 do.

Areca definetly has BBUs for their cards. It would enable you to do safe "write back caching" which would in turn enable fast writes on RAID5/6 setup. So in your case even if you do go for Areca you can get away without the BBU as a safety net.

BUT since your system looks to be an all out carnage fest for budgets, why NOT add this Areca to your list of eXtremes!
It certainly won't hurt!

PS why not go for 8GB RAM and 64bit OS to bypass the pagefile tendency of consuming to much space on your SSDs?

[Buckeye]

BUT since your system looks to be an all out carnage fest for budgets, why NOT add this Areca to your list of eXtremes!
It certainly won't hurt!

PS why not go for 8GB RAM and 64bit OS to bypass the pagefile tendency of consuming to much space on your SSDs?

LOL !

Yes the 8GB Ram is my next option. I am building this system for pure speed and I have a few upgrades that I can throw on later but I want to get the basic build completed first, bench it out and see where I stand.

I am concerned that 1 32GB SSD might be a little bit short on space. Bit the first build will give me a good idea if I will need to expand on that

oh also I was under the impression that the Raid 0 setup will give me more bandwith when using these SSD's, and going with the onboard Raid setup I will end up bottle necking that. Thats why the Raid card as it will have higher bandwith. But at some point things will max out.

[XS Janus]

Yes, I understand your concerns, but I don't thing you can hit that bottleneck with 2 SSDs.
Try looking up some reviews or voicing your concerns in a separate thread. It might get more new views and specific answers and references.

[__Miguel_]

First of all, sorry for the late reply. As usual, XS forgot to notify me on new posts on the thread... hmpf...

I must say I would really like to see more controllers that do their parity calculations on CPU, as the solutions you mentioned do.
What I also dont understand is why dont they make use of the RAM cause that would make all the difference if implemented the right way.
I find it funny when you see how expensive all this RAID hardware is and how buggy it can be. Yet all this issues remain pretty silent.
Just think. data crashes on you... you complain... slow responses, horror, slow/no solutions. On the other hand you have gfx cards just as expensive and when there is a small bug (like picture quality in game etc.) the Internet BLOWS UP with talk about it. Unfair. But so the market stands.

My guess is this: since there is a growing need for fileservers in homes and small business, RAID5/6 solutions on cards Miguel mentioned will become more wanted for such environments. I mean todays CPUs and RAM are just sitting there in fileservers.In more demanding server applications, not so much,so a dedicated XOR on raid card will be preferable.

Agreed on both comments. But I believe that, if anyone can make that jump - from a CPU-only to CPU+RAM parity calculation on non-dedicated cards - RAIDCore will be the one. They've practically built the software based on that.

Or at least let us have a dedicated RAM for a shared CPU approach - meaning a RAIDCore card with RAM on it, and perhaps a BBU for the RAM. If you're concerned about data integrity, that's the way to go...

Qs: How much are the new RAIDcore 5xxx series cards? Do you have to have one to use the software combined with onboard controller or can you just buy the their software for use with onboard and maybe even combined with a different sata controller?
In your place I wouldn't think about using onboard ports to much. It is a cool idea, but mixing technologies doesn't sound right in some way.

What you want when going for a RAID card is being able to move all the drives to you next system with as less risk as possible. God knows how 4 disks on controller + 6 onboard on the same array would behave.
I wouldn't like to exeriment and find out when the going gets tough.

I believe the 4-port version is like €90, with software, which is dirt cheap, really. But you can actually get the software only (there's even a trial version available). Right now you're limited to RAIDCore 5000 series cards and Intel ICHxR controllers, though as soon as AMD releases SB750 (RAID-5 capable SB700), it should be also available on AMD chipsets (the site says "future AMD chipset support", or something like that). Other cards are not supported, AFAIK.

As to the way that works, RAIDCore cards and software are currently able to go as high as a 2-card configuration (the southbridge counting as one of them, if you decide to use it), with a maximum of 32 drives per system (on a 16+16 port configuration, though 16 and 32-port cards are not yet available). On card+southbridge configurations, you can go 6+4 or 6+8 (10 or 14) drives max (probably 6+16 will also be available).

And, from what I've read from a Tom's Hardware article like a year ago, ICHxR arrays are easily migrated between systems. The only real thing you need is both boards have an ICHxR southbridge (same version not a must, and I suspect you should also be able to migrate to and from the server versions of ICHxR). I figure that should be about the same thing with that kind of mixed environments, but that's a great question to have the support service answer *before* building the array... hehehe

Can you span the Raidcore controllers?
Maybe you can buy 1x4port now and expand the array with another if needed. You can always make another array separate on a new controller you buy.

As I said, at least from RAIDCore's website, right now you can have up to two cards on one system.

If onboard RAID and Raidcore software developers would work more on allowing good parity calcs and RAM as write cache to be used then onboard RAID has a good use in other things than RAID0.
Just think: maybe they could even offer additional ports extenders for mobo.
Like they do/did for USB. Why not?

My guess is the whole RAM access isn't that high on the list of priorities has to do with data integrity. Industrial server systems have many redundant systems designed to prevent data still on the cache not to disappear because of a power outage. Your typical desktop or home server system does not. Most times not even an UPS is available.

That being said, I'd like to at least have the option...

As for port extenders, those depend on implementation. Only very recent iterations on the SATA standard allow for port multipliers/extenders, and to my knowledge the ICH10R will be the first integrated controller to have that function available. There are external solutions available know, though, if memory serves me right. But it would be a nice touch indeed...

Regarding IDE drive. I don't see why not to use it. If you don't have any ports free Ide I as goo as any of them for simple task as system drive in fileserver. If the model you mentioned is the same as the sata one then all the better.

Well, the idea of using an IDE drive was to leave the controller free to future upgrades, and actually use the IDE controller... lol Both drives should be practically identical, except on the interface part - and the NCQ/AHCI functions, of course.

Right now I have a E8200 CPU sitting in it
I dont know If I will keep it that way. I bought it to test the power consumption of the new CPUs
Bare system right now it is at 60W. That seems a bit high for such a bare system at the moment, but we'll see what can be done with underclocking and other optimisations
Adding a controller adds ~15W!

If I come across a new dual celly I would be currious to see how much less W would that mean vs, underclocked 8200.

Interesting days ahead I will post any updates and my findings.

Well, that's another advantage on general use CPUs... Those 15W become 5W or even less without the dedicated XOR CPU...

60W does seem a little high... The E8xxx series reportedly has a 4 or 6W C1 idle power, so that means the system is not "idling"... However, underclocking that beast should actually give ou great advantages. Most Penryn CPUs I know (notebook ones, actually) can actually work at least up to 1.2GHz at 0.85v, and probably that voltage could be even lower, if BIOS options were available. I don't think 65nm CPUs can go that low, even the puny E1200... But you never know...

Well I see that 8port Raidcore 5xxx is 250-300$
And that is cool at first glance but add to that a better CPU and RAM if they make that work and you come pretty close to a price point of proven products.
I guess it's all about how experimental you feel and can allow yourself to be.
I thing the tech is not yet mature.
Maybe it will be in time for SSD fileserver

True, but the better CPU and RAM would also be used for other stuff, not only parity calculations. Also, the 4000 series RAIDCore cards didn't seem to be all that power hungry... A Dual-core Opty never reached above 30% utilization... Newer CPUs are much more efficient and fast...

Realistically, going for a hardware controller just for RAID0 is an overkill, you will not see any tangible performance gains from onboard setup.
RAID0 is simple and doesn't involve any complex calculations as RAID5/6 do.

Areca definetly has BBUs for their cards. It would enable you to do safe "write back caching" which would in turn enable fast writes on RAID5/6 setup. So in your case even if you do go for Areca you can get away without the BBU as a safety net.

BUT since your system looks to be an all out carnage fest for budgets, why NOT add this Areca to your list of eXtremes!
It certainly won't hurt!

PS why not go for 8GB RAM and 64bit OS to bypass the pagefile tendency of consuming to much space on your SSDs?

I have to agree with Janus on this one: hardware RAID-0 is very XS material. RAID-0 has a VERY negligible CPU impact, since the only thing the CPU has to process is which drive do the pieces of the file go. CPU utilization should be about the same on both implementations.

However, keep in mind it seems ICHxR southbridges have some kind of limitation when using SSDs. Not sure what, but it seems there is a performance cap on these chipsets...

Also, 8GB would be a good idea. Not a very good one to OC, though, since most boards are mostly optimized for 2x1GB, 2x2GB or 4x1GB operation, 2x1GB being the most common. 4x2GB is very rare, and probably OC potential would be somewhat limited.

LOL !

Yes the 8GB Ram is my next option. I am building this system for pure speed and I have a few upgrades that I can throw on later but I want to get the basic build completed first, bench it out and see where I stand.

I am concerned that 1 32GB SSD might be a little bit short on space. Bit the first build will give me a good idea if I will need to expand on that

oh also I was under the impression that the Raid 0 setup will give me more bandwith when using these SSD's, and going with the onboard Raid setup I will end up bottle necking that. Thats why the Raid card as it will have higher bandwith. But at some point things will max out.

As I said, ICHxR does seem to have a cap with SSDs - around 300MBps, if memory serves me right. Not really something you should be worried about just now, since there are few (and VERY expensive) SSDs who are capable of 100MBps reads, let alone writes. Also, pure sequential reads or writes are very rare "IRL"... In any case, a 2-disk RAID-0 shouldn't be a bottleneck, like Janus said.

Cheers to all.

Miguel

[XS Janus]

It was a long weekend.
4xWD1000FYPS GP drives for RAID
1xWD500AACS GP drive for system
Of course me being me, the intended system drive, 500GB GP, is DOA. Incredible!
Bios and windows see it but comp literally comes to a halt if the drive is connected. Nothing will load, no bench, explorer or diag. program. As soon as you disconnect it everything you clicked comes flying at you


Here are some new pics and some power figures for now.

Drive cage testing and cableware and backplane


My new Chieftec WH-02-2B EATX case: Catapproved for mods naturally Painted matt black, inner sides to



Picked up HDDs (Raptor was from RMA ): TB pr0n for your indulgence


Base system config. is this:
Giga G33M-DS2R
Intel E8200
2x2GB generic Kingmax 800 DDR2
TT Toughpower 750W
DVD-RW
And an old Seagate 80GB ide drive for testing purposes (9-10W idle)

Power figures are as follows:
All stock i was at ~60W idle and ~85-90W at load.
That was running:
Cpu at stock (c1E and eist also on) and mobo as well.

1st tweaks:
Onboard VGA fixed setting
LPT-OFF
Firewire-OFF
Azalia sound-OFF
Serial ports-OFF
All that resulted in 55W idle and 68W load (very big gains in load just by turning all the unnecessary stuff off! Crunchers take notes )

2nd tweak wave:
turning off EIST and C1E and fixing CPU at 2000 MHz
vCore at 1.0v
vMCH at -0.15v
vFSB at -0.15v
idle at this point was 53W and load 59W getting there...

3rd and final tweak:
lowering my 2sticks x 2GB ram at 667 MHz
my final numbers are 50W idle and 57W Load

This is actually pretty good. When E3xxx and E7xxx series come out we'll see better numbers.
My E8200 isn't stable at below 1.0v and high FSB is killing this story.

I did/am doing some Raid tests but that's another post

[__Miguel_]

Hehe... Interesting to see a Delta of just 7W on idle to load...

Btw, do those numbers include the Raptor and the Seagate drive, just the 4x1TB GP, all the GP drives...? Anyway, great power figures. I was a bit confused about the whole "no EIST or C1E" having lower power figures than the "EIST + C1E"... How is that? (Btw, I usually use RMClock to handle CPU voltages and EIST)

Also, sad to hear about the 500GB GP drive. I hope you get a replacement soon.

Btw, may I ask you some questions about the setup?

1) How would an undervolted E1200 fare power-wise against that E8200?

2) Isn't that 750W PSU just a tiny bit too much for a bunch of drives and a massively underclocked CPU? It seems if you got a 80+ certified ~420W PSU you would have a better efficiency (thus lower power consumption) because it would be operating at a more favourable point of the load curve...

3) Does taxing the HDDs at the same time as the rest of the system increase the load temps?

4) How much did that HDD case cost you? And, can you use it without a controller card? (Btw, can you send a link to it's webpage?)

5) Finally, How much vibration/noise are you getting from the HDDs/HDD rack? I was thinking about going the "suspender" route (see SilentPCReview if you don't know what I'm talking about) since I'll actually need to sleep on the same room as the server... Any comments on that?

Before I go, I just want to tell you good luck on the build, I'm sure it will turn out a great server, and a very interesting case too.

Cheers.

Miguel

[XS Janus]

Those figures are for base system only.
That includes:
mobo, 2 sticks(4Gb) RAM, Old seagate hdd, E8200 with a stock heatsink and a TT PSU.
Adding a 3ware controller to the picture adds another 10W on the idle figure.
That means 60W idle.
When I add HDDs (4x1TB), they add 16-23W.
Something strange is going on here after some usage i hear drives park their heads and power drops to 16W for the drives, but when I leave the comp idling the consumption goes to 23W and stays there
That bothers me most momentarily.

I fixed every setting to its lowest stable option in Bios as Gigabyte has excellent settings available. Allways better than software
1. I dont know how much would E1200 be better than E8200 that is to hard to tell. E1200 will probably work at 0.95v but it being 65nm they should be very close.
I will try a different CPU eventualy but don't know which.
Probably a E3xxx or E7xxx when they are released.

2. My TT is an over kill but I know it is a Tier2 PSU and modular is what I want. If you know of a smaller simmilar smaller PSU I could go for it
efficiency is good.
But will just see how good when I compare it to a PicoPSU this weekend.

3. I will try loading HDDs a the same time as the rest and see what happens. But I don't expect any difference. Load now temps are ~44c with a stock cooler and fixed 2GHz clock

4. The cage I bought ICY-Dock model MB455SPF and it is very solid. I get no vibrations from the hard drives and when I close the case it is very quiet. I bought it through SCSI4ME for 129$ but others are listed on their page aswell. I am VERY happy with the cage.


5. They are straight through SATA and can be used without a controller to. They have a fan, temp alarms etc.
The only thing is my HDDs were 56c without a fan and that cpuld be abit high. And Fan is not all that silent. But nothing that cand me changed with a mod or two
I used "suspender mod" for my old Raptor 36GB a while back an if you have room and don't need a cage go for it.

[__Miguel_]

Those figures are for base system only.
That includes:
mobo, 2 sticks(4Gb) RAM, Old seagate hdd, E8200 with a stock heatsink and a TT PSU.
Adding a 3ware controller to the picture adds another 10W on the idle figure.
That means 60W idle.

Kinda harsh, then, but my guess is that Seagate drive is probably sucking more than 10W by itself... I was thinking 50W idle was with the controller and drives.

I guess I'm simply getting too used to hearing about sub-30W builds, and that I actually started believing you can add a ton of stuff without spending more energy... lol

When I add HDDs (4x1TB), they add 16-23W.
Something strange is going on here after some usage i hear drives park their heads and power drops to 16W for the drives, but when I leave the comp idling the consumption goes to 23W and stays there
That bothers me most momentarily.

I've read somewhere on a review of the 1TB GP drives (I believe it was over at SilentPCReview) they had a lot of work trying to measure the power draw of the drives... it fluctuated too much, so it appears like 5~9W on the power draw table... It can be due to that, or eventually some odd hickup of the controller's firmware.

I fixed every setting to its lowest stable option in Bios as Gigabyte has excellent settings available. Allways better than software
1. I dont know how much would E1200 be better than E8200 that is to hard to tell. E1200 will probably work at 0.95v but it being 65nm they should be very close.

Well, they have different cache sizes too, but I know what you're getting at.

2. My TT is an over kill but I know it is a Tier2 PSU and modular is what I want. If you know of a smaller simmilar smaller PSU I could go for it efficiency is good.

Well, the thing is, even with a 100W power draw from the components, that PSU is well below the 20% threshold of that picture (~13%, to be more precise). With 50~60W power draw from the components, we're talking about a sub-10% load on the PSU.

Since PSUs' efficiency drops like a stone below 20%, at that minuscule load you'll probably be around 60% efficiency, which is good, but not as good at it could be with a smaller capacity PSU working at 20%+ load.

Again, over at SPCR, you'll find some reviews of "lightweight" PSUs (small and efficient). They aren't, however, typically modular... I don't know what you want to concerning the aesthetics of the case interior, but if it were me, I'd go with a non-modular PSU (if modulars were not an option), and simply tuck the extra cables away in a way they didn't became a problem for the eyes or airflow.

3. I will try loading HDDs a the same time as the rest and see what happens. But I don't expect any difference. Load now temps are ~44c with a stock cooler and fixed 2GHz clock

Actually, I was referring to power draw, not temps. Unless I'm not understanding what you're saying

4. The cage I bought ICY-Dock model MB455SPF and it is very solid. I get no vibrations from the hard drives and when I close the case it is very quiet. I bought it through SCSI4ME for 129$ but others are listed on their page aswell. I am VERY happy with the cage.

A little expensive for me, but it does look interesting.

5. They are straight through SATA and can be used without a controller to. They have a fan, temp alarms etc.
The only thing is my HDDs were 56c without a fan and that cpuld be abit high. And Fan is not all that silent. But nothing that cand me changed with a mod or two
I used "suspender mod" for my old Raptor 36GB a while back an if you have room and don't need a cage go for it.

Good to know they can be used without a dedicated controller card (except maybe for the independent LEDs, right?

I'll have a look on what will work best for me, since I'm actually building my own case for my server... hehehe I'm in no hurry right now, so that's not a big problem for now.


Thanks for your time. Again, good luck with the build.

Cheers.

Miguel

[XS Janus]

OK, a small update on the power. Raid stuff will come over the weekend.

So I pulled the Pico from my current fileserver and hooked it up to this setup.
The result was pretty damn good: ~20% less draw across the board.

In idle it is now fluctuating around 42W and loads were 47W
I'm still using an old HDD at this time that can't seem to be idle completely, but the power drop from Pico is quite good.

When I have a 3ware 8port RAID controller that I will use in this setup it upped the consumption by ~10W

Maybe I should get a stronger 200W Pico for this setup and all the intended HDDs.
What do you guys think, can I be done?

[__Miguel_]

I expected the PicoPSU having a lower power draw. It's efficiency is through the roof on low power draw systems...

Basically, on sub-60W (well, probably up to sub-80W) systems, there is simply NO PSU capable of such efficiencies (providede, of course, the DC brick has a good efficiency).

Well, I have been over at Mini Box, to check on specs for the PicoPSU, and similar.

As expected, the largest Pico is the 120W version, with 7A max on the 12V rail (6A max on the 3.3 and 5V rails), provided the brick can supply all the juice. If you can get the system power under 100W on load, and sub 7A on the 12V rail, with the setup you want, the PicoPSU 120 will be a good choice.

If the PicoPSU is not an option, then your only real option will be the M4 (the M1, M2 and M3 are not powerfull enough compared to the Pico120, and some of them are actually retired products; and the PW-220-M has horrible amps on the 3.3 and 5V rails...). That actually seems a great PSU for a car, I just hoped it would be available on a "desktop-friendly" configuration (and price). Also, bricks for more than 120W are rather rare and extremely expensive (not to mention very loud...).

If you want to manage it, you will need staggered spin-up running, and very low-power drives. Maybe your system drive will need to become 2,5'', to make room for HDDs on the 12V rail.

With that kind of setup, you WILL need a calculator. Please try to get those amperage figures, so we (I) can help you out there.

Cheers.

Miguel

[__Miguel_]

Ok, a few searches around the web result in this information about amperage uses on the 12V and 5V rails for the system:

- Areca card: 1.5A max on the 12V rail, 1A typical (that's actually good, as you'll see);
- HDD drives (per WD info): 0.34A+0.675A max (each) on the 12V and 5V rails, respectively, for the 1TB drives; 0.22A+0.7A for the 500GB drive;
- "Guesstimate" of 4A+3A for the CPU+Mobo combo. Probably it's lower, I was using a Pentium D 820 system for comparison (4.6A+3.6A).

If my math is right, peak 12V load should be 8.08A, peak 5V should be 6.4A. 3.3V is negligible. However, a 9A 12V brick WILL NOT BE ENOUGH. Also, Staggered Spin-up is a must-have.

Of course, I'm "guesstimating" half the system's power draw, so I can be terribly wrong, in either way.

Cheers.

Miguel

[XS Janus]

Oh my friend but there is a bigger brick a Dell 220W brick

OK, so now because you are so resourceful and good a digging specs up and doing math you can maybe solve this idea of mine:
http://www.silentpcreview.com/forums...ic.php?t=47809

I currently own a 120W version and I remember when I played around with it that I managed to power up a low power config and 4x3.5" regular old school HDDs.

Being that PW-200-M Pico is 200W capable how many of the new GP drives do you guys think this one can handle?

One more thing if I try and over load the Pico by adding drives one by one what will happen when I reach its threshold?

[XS Janus]

After re-reading your posts Miguel I realised I asked my Q the wrong way.
Could you help me calculate the needed amps that need to be provided to power my base setup + controller + 10 total GP drives?

As I stated I was able to startup and run 4x3.5 drives on a small Pico 120W but you saying that 200W version has bad amps on 5v concerns me.

Also have you find out any other numbers on just how efficient is M4?
From the manual it looks to be even better than Pico 120W, but I won't need 50% capacity (hopefully)
How much lower could it be at let say 40%?