overkill file server

by **munky73770** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 4:30 pm

So today I got all my stuff for a server that I am building. Many people agree, complete overkill.......but hey I love it.

Here is what I got:

Lian Li v2000b case
4 x 320 gb WD drives (Sata 7200 rpm)
1 x 36 gb WD Raptor (10,000 rpm)
2 x 512 mb Corsair ram
1 x Evga Mobo
1 x AMD 939 3200 (2.0 ghz)
1 x Evga Nvidia 6600 gt
1 x Rosewill 500 watt modular psu
1 x Rocket Raid/JBOD controller
1 x KVM

I have win server 2003 installed and my the 4 320gb drives are in JBOD...was gonna do RAID, but I might do that later when I buy more drives. My case can hold 12 drives. I can put more into the expansion slots if I wanted to.

Just wanted to share because I'm happy as hell.

by **cavalierlwt** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 5:42 pm

Yeah, that won't work at all. You'll get a Windows error message that says 'Too much memory/CPU power' and then it will shut down.

by **-HaVoC-** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 5:48 pm

Actually it will omit the error and reboot at will.

by **Evan** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 5:54 pm

Originally posted by munky73770
So today I got all my stuff for a server that I am building. Many people agree, complete overkill.......but hey I love it.

Here is what I got:

Lian Li v2000b case
4 x 320 gb WD drives (Sata 7200 rpm)
1 x 36 gb WD Raptor (10,000 rpm)
2 x 512 mb Corsair ram
1 x Evga Mobo
1 x AMD 939 3200 (2.0 ghz)
1 x Evga Nvidia 6600 gt
1 x Rosewill 500 watt modular psu
1 x Rocket Raid/JBOD controller
1 x KVM

I have win server 2003 installed and my the 4 320gb drives are in JBOD...was gonna do RAID, but I might do that later when I buy more drives. My case can hold 12 drives. I can put more into the expansion slots if I wanted to.

Just wanted to share because I'm happy as hell.

Why would you build a fileserver with those specs? No need for the video card..

Should have 2GB RAM.

You would have been better off getting 2 x 74GB or 36.7GB Raptors and put them into RAID1. I would put the 4 x 320GB's into RAID5 (or 10, if possible).

by **LordShard** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 5:54 pm

WHy do you need a 6600 GT? Why do you need 512 MB of ram? It's a file server not a gaming rig.

by **PraiseA||ah** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 6:03 pm

I agree with Evan. No need for a video card that good. More RAM. At least 2GB - I would do 4GB.
RAID level is up to you. Speed vs data integrity vs fault tolerance.

Edit: Is it a file server or a game server? I was assuming the latter.

by **munky73770** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 11:27 pm

Well, my friend sold me the evga and 6600 gt for 150, so I figured its not a bad deal at all. I was going to get a Tyan mobo but those are a bit expensive.

I will upgrade to more ram and hd's when I get more money (tax return). I was thinking of putting CS:S on it but I'm unsure at this point. For backup purposes right now, I have a 400 GB external drive and I use Acronis to image anything I want to backup.

by **LordShard** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 11:34 pm

Originally posted by Evan
Why would you build a fileserver with those specs? No need for the video card..

Should have 2GB RAM.

You would have been better off getting 2 x 74GB or 36.7GB Raptors and put them into RAID1. I would put the 4 x 320GB's into RAID5 (or 10, if possible).

Why would he need 2GB of ram? It's a FILE SERVER. My old Pentium 1 @ 133Mhz and 128MB of ram ran a full speed file server! When I benchmarked it it sent as fast as the modem could take it. (Granted the network connection had a higher bandwidth than the system ram did.)

You use hardware raid. Software raid is complete crap unless you can't afford it. But evidently he can afford it so he should get it.

by **Evan** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:30 am

Originally posted by LordShard
Why would he need 2GB of ram? It's a FILE SERVER. My old Pentium 1 @ 133Mhz and 128MB of ram ran a full speed file server! When I benchmarked it it sent as fast as the modem could take it. (Granted the network connection had a higher bandwidth than the system ram did.)

You use hardware raid. Software raid is complete crap unless you can't afford it. But evidently he can afford it so he should get it.

Depends on the usage really..

You try serving large files and lots of small files 24/7 with only 512MB of RAM and see what happens. Not trying to be mean, but try it sometime. 2GB+ will help performance - especially if you run a webserver for the file serving. After a while it will just bog down with only 512MB.

by **Chacal** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:57 am

Evan is right, a file server should have more memory. Apart from that, it's a nifty server you've got there. have fun!

by **LordShard** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 1:55 am

Originally posted by Chacal
Evan is right, a file server should have more memory. Apart from that, it's a nifty server you've got there. have fun!

Because it keeps the files resident in memory? :roll:

Only way he might need 2GB of ram is if he uses software raid or starts piling more servers ontop of it. For just a file server you don't need even 512mb

by **PraiseA||ah** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 2:05 am

Originally posted by LordShard
Because it keeps the files resident in memory?
Only way he might need 2GB of ram is if he uses software raid or starts piling more servers ontop of it. For just a file server you don't need even 512mb

Evan is right.. I guess we'll all just agree to disagree with you LordShard.

by **munky73770** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:16 am

You guys must be reading my first post wrong.. I said 2 x 512 not 1 x 512 of ram.......

by **PraiseA||ah** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:22 am

Originally posted by munky73770
You guys must be reading my first post wrong.. I said 2 x 512 not 1 x 512 of ram.......

Eh? Reading it wrong? I thought we read it right. Some of us are saying you could use more RAM. 2 x 512 = 1024= 1GB. Some of us were saying you could use 2GB or more, while a certain other party said you didn't even need 512MB. I personally wouldn't take said other party's advice as 2003 itself is a resource hog and will run like crap on 512MB.

by **Chacal** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:49 pm

Still, you don't see guys building a file server everyday, so again, have fun Munky!

overkill file server

overkill file server

Re: overkill file server

Re: Re: overkill file server

Re: Re: Re: overkill file server

Who is online