hows this for a home server setup

hardc0re_tid · 1 Feb 2008 at 20:55

will be used for file storage amoung 3-4 pc's

motherboard is an Asus P5N32 SLI and graphics card will be a Riva TNT32 64mb pci card

if the home server idea doesnt work out as planned how overclockable is this cpu?

paradigm · 1 Feb 2008 at 20:57

Had 3.3GHz out of an E2140 and 3.4GHz out of an E2160

hardc0re_tid · 1 Feb 2008 at 21:03

paradigm said:
Had 3.3GHz out of an E2140 and 3.4GHz out of an E2160

i like the odds

how does the setup look for a server setup though?

paradigm · 1 Feb 2008 at 21:06

Depends on what you mean by server, as I'm pretty sure my definition of a server wouldn't come close to those specs

If all you want is a simple location for network file sharing, then it will be more than adequate.

What OS were you going to use? WHS?

hardc0re_tid · 1 Feb 2008 at 21:07

paradigm said:
Depends on what you mean by server, as I'm pretty sure my definition of a server wouldn't come close to those specs

If all you want is a simple location for network file sharing, then it will be more than adequate.

What OS were you going to use? WHS?

yea, windows home server or xp pro sp2

paradigm · 1 Feb 2008 at 21:09

It will be great for WHS

IAmATeaf · 1 Feb 2008 at 21:14

If it's just for storage then wouldn't a NAS box be ideal and cheaper?

hardc0re_tid · 1 Feb 2008 at 21:15

well thats that sorted then, just have to finish Project Overkill \/

paradigm · 1 Feb 2008 at 21:16

Yes and no, most cheap NAS boxes have godawful transfer rates, even when coupled with gigabit networking usually they just quite simply suck. Great for storage that is rarely hammered, but pretty useless for multiple people dragging large files on and off them.

Also, there are the benefits (and interests?) of playing with WHS, which may appeal to someone who wants to learn/play with something new?

hardc0re_tid · 1 Feb 2008 at 21:16

nah, id rather have a pc tbh

forgot to mention, its also going to be a download/folding box

decto · 1 Feb 2008 at 23:10

Seems a fair setup. The mainboard is a bit of an overkill for a server but if you already have it then might as well use it.

I have a s939 opteron 1.8Ghz Dual core with running XP professional as a server. It's fine only don't expect much more that 300Mbs accross a gigabit network. It works well through remote desktop... takes care of my torrents and other downloads.

Consider you options vs raid, and capacity. The problem for any server is disk access when multiple users are accessing. 4x 250 Drives would give you more capacity than a straight 500 mirror and would likely provide better read perfromance.

The core 2 is a fair bit more powerful so it's a good basis for a server.

AD

LizardKing · 2 Feb 2008 at 01:54

PSU seems a bit overkill! a 300/350watt would easily power that.

theheyes · 2 Feb 2008 at 02:07

Folding for Team 10, ja?

hardc0re_tid · 2 Feb 2008 at 12:20

theheyes said:
Folding for Team 10, ja?

just general folding tbh, who is team 10?

would 300/350w be ok for overclocking though?

Pandobear · 2 Feb 2008 at 18:56

The WHS setup will beat any of the NAS solutions in my experience, my WHS box will do sustained writes above 25 Mb/sec. One of the members on here was talking about his new Icybox NAS doing 5 MB/sec in RAID, very poor. Oh and my brand new server was cheaper that his NAS box!

You are definately right to go with the WHS build.

IAmATeaf · 14 Feb 2008 at 12:09

Sorry to bring up an old thread but...

I had no idea that consumer NAS boxes had such god awful transfer speeds so I went out and got not 1 but 2 NAS boxes, got a Lacie 1Tb and a 500gb NAS disks and the transfer speeds are bloody awful, I get around 8mb/s on my 100mb LAN, much better then my previous USB2 external disk but still rubbish.

Done some reading and most people blame the use of the xfs filesystem, anybody have any hints and tips to try and speed it up a bit?