Low power download/share server setup help please. - Overclock.net

BeaverusIV · 10-04-09

I am looking to make the lowest possible power server I can.

I want at least 4TB (3x 1.5TB/3x 2TB) + a 32/64GB SSD.

I don't know much else, I was thinking if I run a commandline linux for handling stuff from the SSD, with the downloads being temporarily downloaded to the SSD and then transferred to the HDDs once done to minimise HDD usage.

What mobo/cpu should I be going for? I was thinking because of the HDDs an ION/Atom230 but will it affect perfomance/power if I get a 945 and use a PCI add-on for some extra SATAs?

Also, if anyone can help me out with getting linux setup. (I am thinking of using an old computer to setup first so I can some experience with the software and teach the people who will be using it how to.) I like Arch linux because of how barebones the minimal setup is, I want as much of that SSD left for downloading as possible, but is there a better one? I am hoping to just be able to SSH into it to control everything with no physical keyboard/monitor on the box.

Thakn you for your replies. Sorry, I'm not very good at conveying what I want

Angmaar · 10-04-09

I think an Atom + PCI Add on Card for extra SATA ports would be the best option.

DuckieHo · 10-04-09

Why not just write directly to the HDD? Your network speed will be limited to around 80-100MB/s anyways (unless you get better NICs and/or set up Teaming).

If you plan to use the 945 + SATA card, you would be better off with a AMD single-core + 7-series chipset. Same idle power but you have more power when needed.

BeaverusIV · 10-04-09

I'm not going to use AMD. But I will go with VIA or anything else if it is better.

The reason for the SSD is so the HDDs can power down for most of the time, only spinning up a couple of times a day.

What I would like is notification sent out from the linux box that the download has been finished, then people copy it over to their computers for use. This means writing and network operation can be handled quick enough that the drive doesn't spin down straight after the transfer and then spin up again in an hour for file retreival.

Manyak · 10-05-09

If you get a 5400RPM 2.5" HDD it will take about 75 years for it to cost you as much in electricity (running 24/7) as you will spend buying the SSD. It is by no means worth it. It's your choice in the end, but just take this into consideration.

I can't imagine why you don't want to use AMD, but since you won't then try and find one of the older Intel mini-itx boards, the ones with the Celeron on them (this). They use less power than the Atom boards, and are slightly faster than the single core Atoms as well.

Also, instead of using an add-on SATA card, you can use SATA drives on the PATA bus using these. I'm not 100% sure which way saves you more power, but my bets are on these.

the_beast · 10-05-09

There is nothing better than AMD for this. If you go Via get an iDot board (FlexATX format - 2 expansion slots) as they offer more ports & expandability, and are much cheaper than miniITX.
Get an OS laptop HDD drive, or run from a CF card, and forget the SSD route - way too expensive so very poor idea. Write directly to Green 2GB 3.5" storage disks and allow them to spin down in idle.

DuckieHo · 10-05-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeaverusIV

I'm not going to use AMD. But I will go with VIA or anything else if it is better.

The reason for the SSD is so the HDDs can power down for most of the time, only spinning up a couple of times a day.

What I would like is notification sent out from the linux box that the download has been finished, then people copy it over to their computers for use. This means writing and network operation can be handled quick enough that the drive doesn't spin down straight after the transfer and then spin up again in an hour for file retreival.

Does it really matter? The energy saving will never be recouped in the cost of the SSD. You are looking to save something like 25w for one hour? The power cost for that is less than $1 per year.

Also, I assuming you will be running a RAID0? What type of connection do you plan? 1Gbps (125MB/s) or teamed 2Gbps (250MB/s)? Your RAID0 would still be able to staturate the connection so the bottleneck is the network.

Depending on the file size and usage patterns, you might even be better off using a RAMDisk.

**soloz2** · 10-05-09

I've just done a ton of reading on processing power needed for a simple file/backup server and concluded that an atom based rig will be perfect for my needs. Unfortunately, it is very hard to find a low power atom board with more than 2 SATA ports, so that means adding a card or getting an ION board, which 1. costs more, 2. only has 3 SATA ports and 3. uses more power.

I ended up ordering an Acer Easystore H340. It comes with a 1TB drive, which can be upgraded if you choose (just need to clone it as WHS is installed on it) and 3 empty hot swap bays. It officially only supports 1TB drives, but many users have reported using 1.5TB and 2TB drives. Further supporting that 2TB drives should work without problem is that the new Lenovo home server uses the same chasis and nearly the same specs (less RAM, larger HDDs) Plus, if 4 Hdds isn't enough you can always use a second box with the eSATA port since it supports port multiplier.

I thought UPS would deliver today, but it looks as if tomorrow is the day... damn UPS and guaranteed 3 day shipping taking 4 days... Just another reason why UPS sucks.

DuckieHo · 10-05-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by soloz2

I've just done a ton of reading on processing power needed for a simple file/backup server and concluded that an atom based rig will be perfect for my needs. Unfortunately, it is very hard to find a low power atom board with more than 2 SATA ports, so that means adding a card or getting an ION board, which 1. costs more, 2. only has 3 SATA ports and 3. uses more power.

Atom and AMD/7-series use about the same power idle. However, the AMD/7-series provides better performance/wattage, usually has 6 SATA ports, and costs about the same.

It's that stupid 945 chipset.

**soloz2** · 10-05-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by DuckieHo

Atom and AMD/7-series use about the same power idle. However, the AMD/7-series provides better performance/wattage, usually has 6 SATA ports, and costs about the same.

It's that stupid 945 chipset.

agreed, intel should be shot for pairing a 4watt cpu with a 22watt chipset

The deciding factor for me in building v pre-built was the enclosure. My wife would shoot me if I tried to hide a mid-tower somewhere around the apartment and small cases that hold several HDDs are very hard to come by or are very expensive.

		Overclock.net - Overclocking.net > Specialty Builds > Servers
Low power download/share server setup help please.

10-05-09	#6 (permalink)
the_beast Mobo Master Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: London, UK Posts: 1,033 Rep: 143 Unique Rep: 98 Trader Rating: 0	There is nothing better than AMD for this. If you go Via get an iDot board (FlexATX format - 2 expansion slots) as they offer more ports & expandability, and are much cheaper than miniITX. Get an OS laptop HDD drive, or run from a CF card, and forget the SSD route - way too expensive so very poor idea. Write directly to Green 2GB 3.5" storage disks and allow them to spin down in idle.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)