Spec me a DIY "entry spec" Home Server please

Mike1983

Mike1983

Mike1983

Associate
Joined
16 Nov 2007
Posts
811
Hello All

I wish to embark on a new project some time in the New Year, building a server for the media needs of my household. The current criteria for the build floating around in my head is listed below

1) 3x HDDs set up in RAID 5. I presume the best way is for a hardware RAID controller as opposed to software? I'm thinking 3x 2TB HDDs.
2) No need to be housed in a quiet or a cool looking case etc. The server is to be housed in the loft, out of sight.
3) It is to be a standalone desktop / tower case as opposed to rack mount.
4) The system is to be connected to a HP Procurve Gigiabit rated switch via Cat 5E cable (as is the rest of the network), the system should enable a high data transfer rate. I'm hoping for 100MB/s + if possible. I'm currently using a Thecus NAS drive that only usually sees around 30 MB/s. I'm assuming a dedicated LAN card would be required to enable such transfer speeds.
5) I'm aware of HP Proliant Micro Server "off the shelf" solutions. I'm seeing this as a little hobby though and would like to build all of this myself. If however it is probably considered more beneficial to go with such an off the shelf product, please feel free to advise.
6) The system will be used for streaming music and video around the network, remote data storage / backup and FTP, possibly a web server in the future.

I've not built a computer in several years and never a server. It's a big ask but it would be great if people could review and advise what suggested parts I would need to complete the project it would be greatly appreciated, likewise any critique / alternative suggestions.

Budget is say up to around the £1k mark but happy to spend more if there is justification for better performance. Likewise happy to spend less if there is a "sweet spot" for performance / price.

Thanks for your time

Mike
 
A server is called a server because of what it does, rather than what it is.

Servers are computers that are used for a specific purpose, in your case it'll be data storage.

You will just need to build a cheap enough computer, using a a case big enough to fit all your drives that you want to use.

Skip the 2TB drives too, 3TB drives are better value for money than 2TB on a GB/£ basis.

You won't need a separate LAN card, I've used onboard LAN on all of my computers over the last few years and I've always got full bandwidth of my gigabit network (128MB/s), as long as the network port is GB and the harddisks can support 128MB/s transfers, you'll get that.
 
Thank you for your input. After a little research I think the 3TB drives are definitely the far better option, thank you. I just assumed they were far too expensive initially and went straight for 2TB.

So I guess I could refine my queries to the following

1) What kind of processor speed should I be looking at for the setup? Also would I be correct in assuming quad core is the preference over dual core?

2) With respect to OS, would I be correct in thinking WHS 2k11 would be sufficient for my needs? I presume this enables FTP and web server facilities etc to be set up?

3) With regards to RAM, what quantity should I be looking to get?

Thank you
 
Building a home server is a good opportunity to re purpose any redundant hardware you may have lying around. As OldCoals said, you don't need to spend anywhare near £1k to build a home server.
 
You do not need a quad core, get the dual, more power efficient. In fact, get the lowest W one you can. I run an i3 in mine.
Why do you want to run a website from it? Your maximum upload of your internet is a severe limitation (I do remtoe access to mine, and damn its slow) and will crawl if more than 2-3 people are on it.

I know the previous version of WHS (I have it) allows remote access to files, I assume the new one would as well.
 
With respect to web server, this may not happen, just an idea I have floating around so it should probably be discounted as a requirement. FTP is a definite though. I'm on a decent connection, Virgin 120Mb, 10Mb upload.

So I can see your point about going for dual core, I'd assumed "bigger is better" with respect to getting a decent data transfer speed but I see the logic in reduced power needs.

So what is the bottle neck in transfer speeds then. If I got say a 2Ghz dual core with say 6GB RAM (I'm assuming everything is triple channel these days) and the HDDs below, would I saturate the Gigabit / Cat 5E connection?

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=HD-398-WD&groupid=1657&catid=1660&subcat=1954

Thanks again!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom