Building a home server

feeddagoat

feeddagoat

feeddagoat

Associate
Joined
19 Nov 2008
Posts
412
Location
carnmoney outside Belfast
Hey guys. Was hoping I could get some advice for a beginner about building and maintaing a file server. Ive looked around the net but I cant seem to get one good straight source of information. I would like to learn how to use and maintain a server. ATM I want it to act as a main store of files, such as movies, music and my work, act as a collective email server from my numerous email addresses. At a later date I hope to expand it to be able to record tv and host a web site. I know a server can be expensive and akward but its something I want to learn and im willing to put a bit of money into it. What Im looking for is something that has a good trade off between reliability and cost and to be realitivly quiet (since its a home server)

1)What sort of Specs would I be looking at for a basic file server, that would allow me to start simple and gradually add and build up to include everything im aiming for?
2)Can you direct me in the direction of a good information source on the subject be it a website, book or your own knowledge.

Thanks in advance =)
 
I've got a fileserver in my cupboard (Yes, it lives there). It's a micro-ATX motherboard with a cheap dual core AMD CPU, 1GB of RAM (Need to upgrade this), Gigabit LAN and loads of hard drives attached.

However, regarding with what you want to do with it, you'll probably want an ATX motherboard so you have all the extra ports and stuff.

For website hosting, that really depends on how busy the site would be. I've got my own Dynamic DNS that I use for development work as well as when I want to host game servers for friends. Never looked at having an email server though.

Awkward? Nah, not had a single problem with it. It's never BSOD'd and I've had it running 24/7 for months now without a single reboot. Running Windows XP Pro on it :)

As far as quietness goes, it's got 1 120mm fan and the CPU cooler, that's it. With it being in a cupboard, I've got the fans on full yet I still can't hear it when I go to sleep.

It hasn't cost me much either. You can probably build yourself a basic fileserver for ~£350 and it'll do everything you want.

EDIT: I'd be happy to speak to you with some more in-depth information if you wanted.

Oh and another thing you might want to consider is the energy usage if you're going to be leaving it on 24/7. My server is 110W at full load as I run Rosetta@Home on it.
 
Last edited:
Low power costs would be ideal. The other specs I considered more prioity. From what I did manage to find It doesnt seem too task heavy (a file server) so low power would probally come with newer generations of processor and not needing huge clock speeds anyway. I thought about a gaming server but im worried about my internet not being able to handle upload speeds for gaming (unless its a very local lan party). It is an avenew I probally will explore in the even more distant future. I dont think the website would be a popular one anway. Its more the learning experience im after but if it ever became popular I would look into investing in improved hardware. As I said, hosting a website will be at a later date (possible a year or more down the line depending on cash and addictiveness lol).

I would love to hear what you have to say but remember, im completely new to this lol
 
One of the most power hungry components in computers these days is a graphics card and you won't be needing one of those (Get an integrated motherboard) so that'll cut it down a lot.

For a gaming server, that largely depends on your upload speed. I've got a 1Mb up connection (120KB/s max) which can easily handle 2 left4dead servers, not tried with any other games though. For LAN games, it's wonderful as you get a lot more control over the server if it's dedicated. Hell, you could even write a batch script to start all your game servers when you have a LAN game and just fire that up.

For developing a website, again you don't need anything powerful. Corporate websites like this one will probably have multiple servers, not because of the pages but because of the amount of page requests they'll get (Most PHP pages are processed in seconds). Again with the game servers, you'd need upload bandwidth more than processing power.

I expect the most expensive part of the system will be the hard drives depending on how much space you're wanting.

EDIT: Here's a quick spec I whipped up. Would probably do everything you want it to although you might be able to get more for your money. There's no 45nm chips at the budget end yet so it'd have to be 65nm.

This also assumes you'd have an OS to install. For my server, all the administration is done via remote desktop so if it does BSOD or crash, I've no way of knowing.

fileserverspec.jpg
 
Last edited:
I've got a small board designed for embedded systems/kiosks etc (cross between mini-itx, flex-atx and/or micro-atx in size) with a 1.6ghz Pentium M in as a file server/backup/download box. its got gigabit lan, a gig of mem in, 2x WD Green drives in and a PicoPSU for power. the whole lot doesnt consume much power at all and stays relativly cool and quiet even when extracting or verifying files and downloads, or streaming video and audio.

I have win server 2003 on it (very overkill lol) as I got a licence from my university's MSDNAA. I remote desktop in if i ever need to do anything to it, but once it's set up it's very rarely I ever need to RDC in as it just runs and does what it needs to on its own. I do check windows update on it every now and then to make sure its up to date

I have scripts run on my main PC's to map out network drives and run robocopy backups at logon/logoff, and also have a script should I ever need to shut it down or restart it remotely
 
Last edited:
cokecan72 said:
I've got a small board designed for embedded systems/kiosks etc (cross between mini-itx, flex-atx and/or micro-atx in size) with a 1.6ghz Pentium M in as a file server/backup/download box. its got gigabit lan, a gig of mem in, 2x WD Green drives in and a PicoPSU for power. the whole lot doesnt consume much power at all and stays relativly cool and quiet even when extracting or verifying files and downloads, or streaming video and audio.

I have win server 2003 on it (very overkill lol) as I got a licence from my university's MSDNAA. I remote desktop in if i ever need to do anything to it, but once it's set up it's very rarely I ever need to RDC in as it just runs and does what it needs to on its own. I do check windows update on it every now and then to make sure its up to date

I have scripts run on my main PC's to map out network drives and run robocopy backups at logon/logoff, and also have a script should I ever need to shut it down or restart it remotely
Click to expand...

Server 2003 isn't really needed (as you said). However, the OP could do most, if not all things with just XP Pro on it. Has Remote Desktop on it.

The specs listed in this thread look to be good for what you want.

If it was me, personally, I wouldn't use 1 1TB drive, I'd have a few smaller drives.
 
Thanks for the replys. ATM I have an old sempron-LE 1.6GHz ying around. I read that some people start with old Pentium III's as a way of reusing old parts. Although im not saving much would that still be reusable so to speak?

As for the OS, I only have vista-64 and xp (cant remember but its one that comes bundled with prebuilt pcs). Since I have to get an OS would getting Windows server be worthwile? Again just to learn to use the software. The other alternative would be to use Linux.

In terms of Storage would raid 5 be worthile. Im terrified of loosing data (terrible thing for an 8year old to leave his PS1 memory card in his pocket for it to get washed lol) but want increased speed performance. I think having 1tb disks may seem overkill but it would save hassel later on down the line. Would I be able to use a small disk for the OS or would all disks be the same? I know some people warn heavily about mixing HD's aswell as ram.

If I did go for NightmareXX's build suggestion what would I be looking for when I come to upgrade apart from more harddisks? For example, if I had 2-3 users downloading their stored files and a web page up, would te dual core processor be able to handle the amount of traffic?
 
cokecan72 said:
Snip
Click to expand...

Some good points there, summed up what I was trying to get at.

If that sempron of yours is AM2 then I see no reason as to why you couldn't reuse that and save a bit of cash.

You could use a linux based OS although I'm not sure how easily they integrate with windows drive mapping and such. There's a multitude of free remote desktop tools that you could use if you decided to go that way. As for an OS HDD, just partition one of the drives to 15-20GB so should you need to format, you won't loose everything.

RAID 5? Sounds a bit like overkill IMO. Chances are that as long as a drive is in a suitable working environment (Not freezing cold, baking hot, humid) then it'll be fine. I've yet to have a hard drive die on me and I've got drives that are over 6 years old. The newer drives have a MTBF (Mean Time Between Failure) or something like 50000 hours which would be 6 years of continuous use. Probably higher than that :)

A Gigabit LAN can only transfer data at a theoretical speed of 125MB/s which you'll never get. My network goes at 50MB/s when transferring large files which is more than fast enough in reality and that's just using 1 SATA HDD to transfer from. I've got a few mixed discs and I've never had a problem with that although they're not RAID'ed.

For the build I suggested, I doubt you'd ever need to upgrade anything other than the HDD's. Transferring files uses <1% of CPU time and serving webpages, like I said, is usually quick and inexpensive. If you're doing heavy database manipulation then yes, the pages will take longer to load but not so much so that you'd need to upgrade anything.

As for swinnie's mention of not using 1TB drives, you have to remember that most motherboards only have 4-6 SATA ports and if you use smaller drives, you run the risk of running out should you want to upgrade (I had that problem) and dedicated SATA cards cost a fortune for what they are.
 
How about looking at the HP ML115, see the thread in this section.

Just bought mine for £146 purchased 3 x 500GB drives for extra storage and have 4 GB Ram from OCUK at £34 on order.

Works out about the same price as the chaps above specced up and has a lot more storage etc.

Obviously will have to pay extra for the OS of choice if you fancy playing with the features of Server - using 2008 with mine.
 
All good advice, but I'd have to say skip Windows Server and just use XP Pro. I also would not bother with RAID5. If you say a single 1TB disk is overkill then it sounds like you could easily back up your data to an external USB hard drive with ntbackup or any of the free utilities out there.

That would give you plenty to work with as a little learning experience/project. Then, in future, if your storage needs grow you could then look at some of the RAID options when you purchase more disks.
 
Thanks for the advice everyone =) I was thinking after reading that raid 5 is overkill but I still want to back up data just incase. Was thinking of compressing everthing onto another HDD but the suggestion of an external HDD is a good one I never thought about. Ill save up a bit and try and start the build towards mid feb all being well. Ill post back to let you know how it all goes. Im gonna stick to what NightmareXX suggested spec wise earlier in the post and go from there. Thanks again everone!
 
I run a small file server in my house.. I runs a low end dual core CPU, underclocked, 2GB RAM, cheap motherboard, small case and 400W Antec PSU. I'm using an adaptec PCI-E raid controller that controls 4 x 1TB drives in RAID1 which gives me two 1TB arrays. I've got the OS installed on an old 200GB drive. Am currently in the process of sticking Server 2k8 and Exchange 2k7 on it so I've got something to practise things on for work! :)
 
The only reason i normally recommend an actual server OS is that people doing this kind of thing are generally interested in the server side and it will build your knowledge a lot!

Working in IT i find it beneficial to have a Server at hand that i wont get a rollocking if i bugger it up!
 
MivkM said:
The only reason i normally recommend an actual server OS is that people doing this kind of thing are generally interested in the server side and it will build your knowledge a lot!

Working in IT i find it beneficial to have a Server at hand that i wont get a rollocking if i bugger it up!
Click to expand...

Thats the reason I'm putting Server on. Haven't got a test sever in work, so I generally have to test things on clients servers on the sly.. Not good if its something that might break something!
 
I used to run an old P3 900MHZ (768MB SDRAM) 2 x 500GB HDD's with Windows 2000 Advanced server, tidy little set-up, did just what I needed it to do (File Server/Web-Server), used to run it pretty much 24/7 for a good 9 months but unfortunatly the motherboard went (it was old and had it) and I didnt bother replacing it.
 
If your aim is to learn I would invest a little more in some decent hardware and then go for OpenFiler or FreeNAS - you could even run ESXi and run a virtual windows distro with the file server manangement tools on if you so wish and point it at an OpenFiler LUN. From a storage point of view, this sort of experience is likely to be 'better' experience in a commercial environment. As other's have said - a file server basically runs itself and running ESXi will give you the ability to run a few virtual servers on one bit of hardware - you can dabble as much as you want! In work we have a few ML110's running ESXi for testing things on - I imagine that the ML115 would also work for this purpose!
 
You guys with the HP ML servers - how much power do they draw? I'm interested in those having had a look. I've got one of those wall plug power meters - my P3 server draws about 72W on load and idles about 65W. Hoping it can match that or at least offer far greater performance per watt...
 
It's around about the same. I know someone running one of these with 4 hard drives and that runs at ~95-100w. Each HDD is about 8w...? So I suppose you can remove 24w (3*8w), so about 71w - > 76w.

They do perform well though - with the added bonus, as I said, that you can run ESXi on them.
 
Alternatively, have you considered Windows Home Server? I've just built myself a fileserver using a K45 Shuttle with a 2ghz Celeron, 2gb ram and a spare 320gb barracuda. It's running whs (120 day trial), so before that runs out I plan to stick a 1tb WD Green in there and buy the full version.

Cost me £150 for the parts so far, plus ~£190 for the WD and full copy of whs in a few months time.
 
If its going to be running 24/7 then I would really recommend having a look at the intel dual atom system.
They are still very fast at what you want but, will save you a lot in electricity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom