WD "green" HDD for home server?

[Grit]

I'm interested in building a Windows Home Server based computer, which I intend to use primarily for file storage of media files (pictures, music, etc.). It will also be used to store backups of two desktops and one laptop. Finally, it will (hopefully) be used as a music/media server. The later will be infrequent and to only one source at a time.

I'm wondering if the Western Digital 1TB "green" hard drive would work ok, or if it would be too slow? If my understanding of file transfers over gigabit ethernet are correct, the limiting factor will be the network and not this drive. Can anyone with some experience or knowledge comment on this?

Also, I need to know how much RAM I need for the server, given the scenario I posted. Again, can anyone with some experience please offer some input?

Thanks a ton!

 

[sutahz]

Im sure the hdd would suit you just fine. Isn't a gigabits max throughput 256MB/s? Guess not 125MB max. No hdd can xfer that fast. How fast is data req'd for media to play? 192KB/s for mp3's? A few MB/s for video's? The hdd will have no problem w/ that.
No, the limiting factor is the hdd, a good avg xfer rate is 60MB/s i'd say, so 125MB/s is way more then that, wouldn't you agree?
If a computers only job is to tranfer file on and off a hdd thru a network connection, how much ram do you think it needs? 1GB of DDR1 or 2GB of DDR2 should do you (why 2GB of DDR2? Cause its just so darn cheap, why the f not).

 

[ForumMaster]

Originally posted by: sutahz
Im sure the hdd would suit you just fine. Isn't a gigabits max throughput 256MB/s? Guess not 125MB max. No hdd can xfer that fast. How fast is data req'd for media to play? 192KB/s for mp3's? A few MB/s for video's? The hdd will have no problem w/ that.
No, the limiting factor is the hdd, a good avg xfer rate is 60MB/s i'd say, so 125MB/s is way more then that, wouldn't you agree?
If a computers only job is to tranfer file on and off a hdd thru a network connection, how much ram do you think it needs? 1GB of DDR1 or 2GB of DDR2 should do you (why 2GB of DDR2? Cause its just so darn cheap, why the f not).

how the hell did you get this? a byte it 8 bits. so you divide 1000megabits by 8 and you get 125MBps. real world is more like 100MBps. that harddrive should be able to feed that without much of a problem. but even if it didn't, movies don't average more then even ~40Mbps for full HD movies. it will not be a limiting factor.

get 2GB since, as sutahz points out, it's so damn friggin' cheap! but even less will be sufficient if all it's doing is serving files.

 

[0roo0roo]

yup 100MB/s
many cheap nas devices will rape that down to almost 100mb/s speed
then again many nas devices probably do most of the media server stuff you need, and use less power than a pc..which is the point of a green harddrive rigt?

 

[JackMDS]

Giga is a deceiving number.

Windows Home Server computers have a regular Entry level Network hardware and are configured in peer-to-peer topology.

Giga under such configuration at best yields 30 to 35 MB/sec.

I.e. a current main stream HD support well the Giga and nothing fancy is needed.

To get closer to the theoretical Giga one need to spend considerable amount of Money and use the full Windows 2003 Server.

Please note b=bit B=Byte, 8bits-1Byte.

Networks Speed - http://www.ezlan.net/net_speed.html

Home Giga Network: http://www.ezlan.net/giga.html

Giga networking - http://www.ezlan.net/giga_net.html

 

[Spike]

In my WHS box I use an old AlthlonXP 1800+, 768MB DDR 266 ram, and three hard drives. A WD 120GB (5 years old), Maxtor 250GB (3 years old) and Maxtor 320GB (2 weeks old). Even using the old drives streaming music works without a hitch over 10/100 network. The system is a little slow for an initial backup of a new machine but subsequent backup updates go very quickly.

One thing I have not done is stream any sort of HD content so I have 0 idea how this machine would do but I am betting poorly. Since I have a seperate pc I plan to use as a HTPC I'm not so worried about streaming HD, just music.

 

[JackMDS]

There is a real mental problem when it comes to Networking and Servers.

Enthusiasts over the years got so much into the Mode of Overclocking and Video Frame Pushing that they cannot accept that other aspects f computing might have different parameters.

OC and Video Pushing are like racing cars, Speed is everything.
Networking is more like Hot Rod, careful design, building, and smooth operation are of essence.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: Grit
I'm wondering if the Western Digital 1TB "green" hard drive would work ok, or if it would be too slow? If my understanding of file transfers over gigabit ethernet are correct, the limiting factor will be the network and not this drive.

In theory, like nearly all single HDs, the WD green drive can limit the maximum sustained transfer rate over gigabit. However, it's more likely that WHS itself together with the networking and client computer, etc. will limit the transfer rates below the max speed of the drive, and the STR of the WD is still pretty good -- better than many previous-generation not-so-green drives.

In practice, for single-user workloads, the difference in HD performance will probably not make any overall performance difference, and at worst, make a difference which can be measured in some cases with timers and benchmarks, but not be otherwise significant.

 

[mindless1]

WHS will not significantly bottleneck Gigabit Ethernet in this usage scenario. Gigabit ethernet in itself isn't a normal bottleneck here but the specific nic and it's interface could be, using 32bit 33MHz PCI bus for the NIC and/or a software raid card would, and the hard drive is also a bottleneck in real world random access scenarios.

On a decent (need not be high performance based on today's standards) system using jumbo frames you can expect about 40MB/s, sometimes dipping down to about 20MB/s. Any of these is obviously much faster than streaming a couple videos simultaneously requires, and fast enough that moving large imaged backup files back and forth isn't too painful (and these large files will tend to be closer to 40MB/s than 20MB/s).

As for memory, without lots of concurrent connections and transfers, you don't need much ram at all. 256MB would do the job, 512MB to 1GB is a more comfortable zone.

To give an example of performance, I still have an old fileserver built out of spare parts years ago, running Win2k, not 2k server, with a Celeron 500, 256MB of memory, i810 integrated video, software raid card and RT8169 GbE NIC both on the PCI bus. It achieves 20-30MB/s with single client access running raided older drives (can't recall exactly what they are, roughly PATA 160 to 250GB generations, IIRC).

Based on this example, frankly you could throw together any old system and will easily exceed the throughput requirements and the rest is just icing on the cake, except today it's reasonable to aim for raid card or NIC on the PCIe bus or chipset integral link not PCI 32bit/33MHz, and of course if the board and it's bios is too old you dont' have SATA or 48bit LBA support but an inexpensive HDD controller card will fix that.

Personally I like energy efficient systems, for the lower power bill when always on but also when always running at low heat levels the airflow required is reduced, so your slower spinning fans last longer and dust buildup is reduced, regardless of whether there is a filter as you still have to clean a filter every once in a while.