Small Office Network

Hybrids · 6 Feb 2012 at 13:20

Hi!

My work network is really slow and I'm looking for a cheap and easy solution.

Currently I have a Dell T100 tower 'server', it has windows XP, Quad core, 4 gb of RAM and a 250GB HDD which I assume is SATA I as it doesn't state anything different on the specs etc (the Server is 5 years old).

There are 5 people accessing the one hard drive on the server, we use 3D Engineering software that requires us to open large models, when a few of us are opening the largest models the network completely slows up wasting loads of time. I assume from this that its a read/write issue with the HDD on the server and not the individual computers accessing the network.

I don't want to go out and buy a new server but would rather a quick fix. The obvious solution I can see is to get a quicker hard drive, currently its 7200rpm. I know its only a sata I connection but would WD Raptor 10000 RPM speed my transfer rates? I think the Raptor HDD are sata II/III so I know I wont get the full benfit but what performance difference would I see? Is it worth getting a SSD although I'm restricted to SATA I transfer rates? I also heard that windows XP would require external software to refresh the memory on SDD (something which is built into windows 7)? On top of this I was going to buy a gigabit switch and cat5e or cat 6 cables.

Other than a network/HDD upgrade, I can't think of another cheap solution.

Any thoughts?

Many Thanks,

Phil

bremen1874 · 6 Feb 2012 at 14:04

Fix the network first. If you’re running a 10/100 switch then you’re going to limited to no more than 12.5MBps (no way near the bandwidth that even a single 7,200rpm drive can provide). You won’t need anything better than Cat5e for the cabling.

10,000rpm (or even 15,000rpm) drive(s) would help. As a minimum I’d get hold of a PERC5/I adapter (with the battery backup module) and a pair of drives in RAID1 (presumably you care about your data). A pair of Raptors would do, but SAS drives would be preferable.

If you do only need 250GB-ish of storage then SSDs could be a viable option (assuming a Gigabit network). These should still really be mirrored for redundancy, and server grade SSDs aren’t cheap.

I also wouldn’t be using XP as a server OS. There are now various versions of Windows server targeted at the SME market that aren’t that expensive (even WHS2011 would be an improvement).

edscdk · 6 Feb 2012 at 14:10

how big is a big file 50mb or 500gb?

are you already on a gigabit switch?

would a HD 15 to 20% faster make things faster? yes but not by much...

if you are on 100mb network, get a gb switch

if the HD's are the issue add a 2nd one and split the data?

I assume the "servers" CPU is mostly idle while these slowdowns take place...?

Hybrids · 6 Feb 2012 at 14:30

Thank you for your replies, it is a 10/100 switch/network, I guess the network should be upgraded first. From this I can see the performance difference and then assess whether we'd require additional upgrades such as the HDD. The files sizes can vary between 50-200mb, which each user opening a few at a time.

Bremen1874 you stated a 10/100 is limited to 12.5MBps. Do I assume that a gigabit switch would be x10 faster?

This probably seems a bit of silly question but I've never actually setup a RAID hdd before, what are the speed benifits of having two 7200RPM drives over one? Is it because two drives can simultaneously read/write?

What would WHS2011 give me over XP?

Thanks again for all your help!

bremen1874 · 6 Feb 2012 at 14:45

Hybrids said:
Thank you for your replies, it is a 10/100 switch/network, I guess the network should be upgraded first. From this I can see the performance difference and then assess whether we'd require additional upgrades such as the HDD. The files sizes can vary between 50-200mb, which each user opening a few at a time.

Bremen1874 you stated a 10/100 is limited to 12.5MBps. Do I assume that a gigabit switch would be x10 faster?

Yes, but it'll be limited by your HDD transfer rates. You should see a significant improvement.

This probably seems a bit of silly question but I've never actually setup a RAID hdd before, what are the speed benifits of having two 7200RPM drives over one? Is it because two drives can simultaneously read/write?

There is some potential for increased reads on a RAID1 array (hardware dependent). The main reason is to keep you running when the HDD fails (which it will eventually).

In an ideal world I'd be recommending RAID10 which requires 4 drives but provides redundancy and a significant performance boost. If the T100 is anything like the earlier SC440 then there's only really space for 2 drives.

What would WHS2011 give me over XP?

Possibly nothing, but using a desktop OS on a server is usually a bad idea (it also usually means it was done on the cheap without any proper planning for redundancy and backups). If it's meeting your needs then leave it alone. If/when you replace the hardware get it with a proper server OS.

Thanks again for all your help!

Hybrids · 9 Feb 2012 at 07:57

Hey again,

With regards to the gigabit switch, I've noticed various price differences. Is there anything important I should look out for (specification)? I'm considering going for the cheapest option of getting a TP-Link 8-Port Unmanaged Gigabit Desktop Switch. Netgear switches are almost double the price. Are they just more reliable?

Thanks again for any replies!

Phil

Hybrids · 9 Feb 2012 at 10:08

bremen1874 said:
Fix the network first. If you’re running a 10/100 switch then you’re going to limited to no more than 12.5MBps (no way near the bandwidth that even a single 7,200rpm drive can provide). You won’t need anything better than Cat5e for the cabling.

I've done some research regarding hard drive speeds/data transfer.

As you've said 10/100 Mb/s gives 12.5 MB/s and 1000 gives 125 MB/s. (dividing by 8)

I read that a typical 7200rpm gives transfer rates of 50-60 MB/s, this would mean that 60MB/s divided by 12.5MB/s means the HDD transfers 4.8x faster than the 10/100 switch. Getting a gigabit switch would allow the current hard drive to run at maximum capacity. Also would two Raid0 = 60MB/s *2 rate?

Do you know how the typical figure of 50-60MB/s for a 7200 rpm is calculated?

Example 60*8 gives 480Mb/s, does that mean a typical 7200rpm hdd transfers at a rate of 480Mb/s? How can I find out what my current HDD transfers at? Looking in my computer - hardware, under disk drives it shows WDC WD2502ABYS-18B7A0.

Doing a google search on the hard drive it comes up with a SATA-3Gb/s, do i assume from this 3*1000 / 8 = 375Mb/s transfer rate?

Full Spec:

Manufacturer Western Digital
Manufacturer Part #
WD2502ABYS-18B7A0
Product Line RE3
Product Series Enterprise
Performance
Product Type Internal Hard Drive
Form Factor 3.5-inch
Capacity 250 GB
Cache 16 MB
Spindle Speed 7200 RPM
Average Seek Time 8.9 ms
Drive Interface Type Serial-ATA 3.0 Gbps

Thanks for any replies!

Sp00n · 9 Feb 2012 at 11:20

The speed of the hdd is not your problem, it's the different amount of accesses being attempted at the same time, increase spindles by implementing RAID.

Imo.

Hybrids · 9 Feb 2012 at 11:38

Sp00n said:
The speed of the hdd is not your problem, it's the different amount of accesses being attempted at the same time, increase spindles by implementing RAID.

Imo.

This goes back to my original problem, 5 users trying to access large files from one hard drive. I guess implementing RAID will double my spidle speed (14,000rpm).

Do you agree with previous posts that I need to upgrade to a gigabit network first? I was hoping with a network upgrade alone that I would theoretically improve my transfer rate by x3.8 as im currently restricted to 12.5MB/s (10/100 LAN).

Ultimately I need a gigabit network with RAID to see significant performance improvement.

bremen1874 · 9 Feb 2012 at 14:10

Get a Gigabit switch first. Worry about the rest later.

Any unmanaged Gigabit switch with enough ports should be fine. They all basically perform the same, but if you want something decent the HP 1410 series are worth a look.

Check that all the machines have Gigabit NICs.

Hybrids · 9 Feb 2012 at 14:17

bremen1874 said:
Get a Gigabit switch first. Worry about the rest later.

Any unmanaged Gigabit switch with enough ports should be fine. They all basically perform the same, but if you want something decent the HP 1410 series are worth a look.

Check that all the machines have Gigabit NICs.

Thank you, all except mine has gigabit NIC and all have CAT5e cable. Is there any software I can use to do a before/after test of the network speed? Or should I just transfer a file and time it

Thanks again!

bremen1874 · 9 Feb 2012 at 14:49

Hybrids said:
Thank you, all except mine has gigabit NIC and all have CAT5e cable. Is there any software I can use to do a before/after test of the network speed? Or should I just transfer a file and time it

Thanks again!

Windows Task Manager will show you the network throughput. Or as you say a stopwatch would work. Modern versions of windows display the transfer rate in the copy progress dialog.