[Critique My...] Storage Server

B

Bohica

Veteran XV
Veteran XX
http://www.tribalwar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=477632

Notes:
1) I'm never owned a single SATA drive, nor done hardware RAID. I may be missing some common sense (to some) component; let me know ;o
2) RAM quantity is flexible. I'll probably end up going with 2GB.
3) Drive quantity is flexible. I'll probably end up going with 6 drives rather than 4.


Newegg.com - SUPERMICRO CSE-833T-550B Black 3U Rackmount Case - Retail $454.99
Newegg.com - SUPERMICRO X7DVL-E-O ATX Server Motherboard - Retail $335.99
Newegg.com - Intel Xeon 5030 2.67GHz Socket 771 Active or 1U Processor - Retail $155.49
Newegg.com - Kingston 1GB (2 x 512MB) 240-Pin DDR2 FB-DIMM Dual Channel Kit Server Memory - Retail $138.49
4x Newegg.com - Western Digital Caviar RE2 500GB 3.5" SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive - OEM $639.96

Total: $1,724.92

edit: additional links -
Mobo
Chassis
Click to expand...

ty ty ^____________^
 
How do those compare, price-wise?

As for usage: I'm thinking of something similar for personal use, yes, but not this particular setup.
 
Just use an old computer, throw linux on it and throw some hard drives in it. Add some controllers if you need SATA.

Thats what I did.
 
I do value input in the form of alternatives, but I'm most interested in a critique of this setup. What sucks, what doesn't, etc.
 
I plugged the manufacturer's spec sheets into a spreadsheet to compare the info.

Newegg.com - Seagate Barracuda ES 500GB 3.5" SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive - OEM [ES]
Newegg.com - Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 500GB 3.5" SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive - OEM [.10]
Newegg.com - Western Digital Caviar RE2 500GB 3.5" SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive - OEM [WD]

  • [WD] is lighter (oh noes)
  • same sector count
  • [WD] is a little slower on both average latency and random read/seek time
  • [.10] can operate at 0C while the other two go down to only 5C. This matters only if you live in an igloo.
  • [ES] can operate no higher than 55C while the other two go up to 60C. This could matter, but the case would be too hot if it did.
  • [WD] can stand 5% higher relative humidity (95%). If your house is that humid...damn.
  • [WD] can operate at 1000ft below sea level while the other two are limited to -200ft.
  • [.10] is louder than [WD] which is louder than [ES]. Differences are negligible.
  • [.10] has less than half the failure rate of [ES]. Both are less than 1%, but...
  • [.10] is $15 cheaper per drive. :shrug: Only $60 cheaper than your WD drives for the four of them. Not much considering it is a 1,700 rig.

Otherwise the three drives are pretty much identical as far as the specs show. MTBF ratings...nvm.

I wish something more interesting had surfaced. Now my post is meaningless :sunny:
 
If it's for personal use, you're just wasting hd's unless you ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY need ALL that data at relatively immediate access.

Me and my roomate ran a storage server for about 3 years before we just decided to put it all on dvds.
 
You could get a cheaper MB and get a halfway decent raid card, which would make your system much faster. The only time you need a serious amount of cpu on a file server is if you have many (think an office) of simultaneous users pulling files or you are doing software raid. The raid on motherboards is not nearly as fast or efficient as a dedicated card.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top