Originally Posted by xXxT0MBstonexXx
It is going to be mainly where i store my movies and music so i can access them from any computer and because i cant fit 20TB into my gaming rig lol. pricing is not an issue however i dont want to waste my money buying a 6-core if i only need a 2-core or 4-core. same for memory.
also i dont know how im going to attach 10 HDDs to a motherboard that only has 6 SATA ports lol
I have this setup, essentially. I have a basic AM3 AMD board with a dualcore and 2Gigs of DDR3 ram as the basis of my movie server. It is powerful enough to playback movies on its own, but I tend to simply stream from it (both video and mounting ISO from it over my network, both wired and wireless). Works fine both ways. I run Windows Server 2008 R2 on it because it's free
from Dreamspark if you have an *.edu email address. I simply installed packages and made it more of a workstation than a server operating system, so that it is much more like using your typical Windows 7 operating system instead of a `server'. The word server in things tends to make it scary and big, but in reality, the word is over used. Anything that serves things out is a server.
I have 14 TB in my server right now. And I use 1:1 redundancy. That means I have the same data set on two separate hard drives. With 2TB drives as cheap as $70 (those samsung deals have been so good lately), I'd rather have $140 for 2TB worth of redundant space. I for one am not going to sit and re-backup all my movies again (which is in the hundreds, likely what you're gearing up to do, involving DVD's and BluRay). I do my redundancy manually. Meaning, I just copy the same data to two drives. One drive is for accessing and is shared on my network. The other drive, it's "mirror", is not shared and is not accessed at all unless I'm adding data to it. What this accomplishes is that the mirror drive doesn't even spin up because it's not accessed at all, while the drive it mirrors is accessed all the time and remains spinning. Less ware on my mirror drive. You can't do that with RAID, which is why I don't use RAID1 for example. And this isn't special software. This is just two drives, I copy to both, share one, don't share the other. Simple as that. Not everyone needs redundancy. But when your data set is in the multiple terabyte range, I for one, do not want to re-copy a horde of data from DVD's & BluRays which takes forever compared to simply replacing a drive and copying it at HDD sata speed (60+ megabytes per second) from one drive to another in one click (no swapping of 100's of discs, copy time, encode, etc). So if you're in this camp you're going to want redundnacy. I recommend simple 1:1 like I described here. Do NOT even consider RAID5 or RAID6 here. Your data set is too high for them and the cost is not worth it (it's still a failed array easily at 20TB). I suggest simple groups of 1:1 redundancy.
Alternative method: Windows Home Server's method. It basically does what I just described, but it shares based on folders. The data is then simply assigned to another physical drive so it has redundancy. That way the whole drive isn't `redundant' but only folders you wish to have backups of. This helps save space. But again, you can do this manually yourself for free. I do it myself. I don't like automation when it comes to copying and backing up massive data sets that when lost or screwed up result in hours and days of fixing time.
The motherboard cannot of course accept every single HDD sata connection, it has limits. This is why you have PCIe and PCI slots. You add SATA controller cards. And here's the lovely thing about it: you do not need RAID, you do not need SATA2.0 or even SATA3.0.
Basic SATA will work perfectly fine. A single 5400~7200 rpm drive is not going to even touch saturation of basic SATA, let alone SATA2 and SATA3. So don't think you need expensive stuff. A cheap $30 controller that adds 4 SATA ports on PCI is more than enough. And PCI bandwidth is still higher than a basic hard drive can saturate. You will not be limited. I use the 5400rpm mass storage drives on basic SATA over my gigabit network and I still get about 68 megabytes per second transfer speeds when copying. Your drives cannot even saturate gigabit network (wired). On wireless, on the other hand, the wireless transfer speed is slower than what a drive can do--so you always have a bottleneck there for consumer level stuff. But again I can't stress it enough: you do not need high end stuff. You will not saturate basic SATA with these drives.
All you need:
Operating system. I suggest Windows Home Server (not free) or Windows Server 2008 R2 (free if you go to Dreamspark and have *.edu email address), otherwise, you can use Linux for free. For pay systems, simply use Windows 7 (any version) and it will do what you need just fine or Windows Home Server.
PCI (or PCIe) SATA controller cards. No RAID. Nothing fancy. Not SATA2 or SATA3 even. Just basic SATA. It's cheap and you will not saturate the bandwidth (your drives do not copy sustained rates over 150 megabytes per second--note that number is a dirty estimate, but it's still nearly twice what your sustained copy speed will be on a 5400~7200rpm HDD will be; do NOT base your bandwidth needs on burst speeds, base it on sustained read/write speeds). You can get cheap ones that have 4 ports for $30 or so. That means you can easily add tons of drives to whatever motherboard you have. Spend more money and get more ports on a single card if you please.
Gigabit router/switch, gigabit capable network cables. Otherwise, a wireless N or better router and appropriate wifi cards for devices.
You can operate your server wirelessly, headless, depending on what operating system you use. Mine is headless. I access it and control it using TightVNC (google that if you're interested).