Windows Home Server build

[IndyJaws]

I'm putting together a WHS box from old parts. The motherboard is an Intel D845PEBT2 with a P4 2.4 GHz proc. It currently has 512 MB in a single PC2700 DIMM. I know the processor is plenty powerful, but I have a few upgrade questions:

1) Mobo only supports 10/100 ethernet. Agreed that I should pop in a 10/100/1000 NIC? If so, I've had good success with Intel NICs in the past - any different recommendations?

2) I have 2 new Samsung F1 1TB drives (SATA). The board has 2 SATA I headers that can operate in non-RAID mode (no RAID wanted with the WHS setup). From what I understand, throughput on these drives won't hit the maximum throughput of SATA I, so I would not get the benefit of an add-in SATA II controller card, correct? They're relatively cheap, so I don't mind buying one, but if I get no benefit at all, no need to waste the money.

3) Mobo manual shows support for PC2700 or PC3200. Would I get any benefit from adding another 512MB or 1GB DIMM? They do not have to be matched.

Any other advice is appreciated. Thanks in advance!

Indy

 

[mpilchfamily]

The RAM is the way to go. You'll need at least 1GB. Anything less will be pretty slow.

 

[Madwand1]

Personally, I'd probably get a budget modern-ish motherboard and budget CPU and RAM if I was interested in performance or capacity. SATA on that board is on the PCI bus. Gigabit NICs are advisable, but again they'd have to be on the PCI bus on that board. Having both the storage controller and NIC on the same PCI bus would limit the maximum performance.

That said, it's not easy to get fast performance even with more modern hardware, and you might be limited by the other end's speed, and certainly would be if you don't also use a gigabit switch / router and gigabit on the other end, so you can certainly get by with that, and even getting something theoretically faster would not guarantee that you'd get significantly faster file transfers in practice.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: Madwand1
Personally, I'd probably get a budget modern-ish motherboard and budget CPU and RAM if I was interested in performance or capacity.

I'd do this. Can get new motherboards with four SATA 3.0 and gigabit ethernet for under $60. Couple it with a $40 CPU and $20 RAM. At least this way you won't have that nagging thought in the back of your mind, "what if..."

 

[IndyJaws]

With that being said, any quick recommendations for a motherboard? I'm using a large Antec case, so I'm assuming that an ATX board is what I'll need. I'd think an inexpensive AMD processor is the probable choice for it?

 

[Madwand1]

There are tons of options in that sort of price range, and you can do AMD or Intel.

Here's an example board, based on searching for AMD with gigabit and 6x SATA:

$55:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16813128342

Edit: One quirk is no PS/2 mouse port.

CPU, $40:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16819103232

RAM, 2 GiB, $29:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16820211066

 

[LeonarD26]

I'm putting together a WHS machine myself, and the build Madwand1 suggested is almost exactly what I'm going to build, except with a 4850e and more RAM..... That MB got very good reviews on SPCR for very low power usage and stability..... Good luck!

 

[JackMDS]

There is No real need for all of this.

Your initial suggestion is very good.

Stick Intel Giga card and additional 512 memory (PC2700 or3200 does not matter with P-4).

For the way Windows Home server works and for what it is used for the few % more power that would cost much more in $$ is meaningless.

I run few servers with similar hardware and with one with VIA C-7 with is much less power than the P-4 and they all serve very well.

The power mongering demand putting on each computer became a psychological phenomena know as Functional Autonomy.

Functional Autonomy is a psychological concept that attached to a human behavioral phenomenon of people keep doing something even if the initial motive or need for the function is gone.

Example: A persons became a sailor because he was out of his regular work and needed to support his family. Thus he first acquired his love for the sea as an incident in his struggle to earn a living. But now the ex-sailor is perhaps a wealthy banker; the original motive to work on the sea is destroyed; and yet the hunger for the sea persists unabated, even increases in intensity as it becomes more remote from the original intend.

*******
P.S. If One is really eager to spend, this looks cool.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZW2RlQDBf8&e

 

[Madwand1]

Building a file server on a PCI platform with 2 SATA ports is simply bad design from a modern perspective, and has nothing to do with psychological conditions. Spending < $150 on the core hardware is hardly going on a spending spree to look cool.

It is however the OP's choice, and if he wishes to consider his home file server as something to be patched together with whatever he has lying around, that certainly is still an option to him.

Edit: I'd like to apologize if I'm understating the value of $150. $150 may mean a lot more to the reader than it does to me. In that case, I'd certainly agree with building on the existing platform instead of buying a new one, and I'd also suggest not even buying WHS, but using a free *nix based OS instead.

 

[JackMDS]

The OS can be downloaded from Microsoft as a 120 day trial for free, http://www.microsoft.com/windo...wshomeserver/eval.mspx

It takes 30 minutes to install on whatever the person has at the moment (Hard Drive must be at least 80GB).

If the person is Not pleased with the Server core performance, then Madwand1 solution ( 02/13/2009 08:11 AM) is a very good.

P.S. The comment about Functional Autonomy was Not directed to any one specific person.

It is reflecting my Amused status at the Power Mongering tendency among enthusiasts.

Sometimes a Bicycle can be just a bicycle with pedals and does not need a 100HP Engine.

 

[RebateMonger]

The original box would work fine as-is. If I was going to spend more money, I'd try to find something that used less power. Newegg.com has their MSI Wind Barebones PC for $140 with free shipping on a coupon. You'd only need to add a $20 memory module. It only draws 30 watts. But it'll only hold two SATA drives, and then only if you remove the DVD drive after you've installed WHS.

Edit: I see that Newegg has the Dual-core Atom processor version of the MSI Wind for $150 now.You can also get the Intel Dual-core Atom Mini-ITX motherboard with CPU for $85 if you already have a suitable case. I'm looking at that one myself, since it has a PCI slot to add more SATA or IDE connections, Gigabit NIC, and SVideo.

It wouldn't hurt to toss in a 1 Gbps NIC into the proposed PC, but you wouldn't see any big improvement on a day-to-day basis. It might take longer to initially load the shared data onto the WHS. But I'm not sure how much throughput WHS can deliver when transferring files. I've gotta' rebuild my personal WHS box this weekend, so I'll test that out while I'm backing up the 1 TB of data files.

As JackMDS notes, if you want to re-use the old hardware (certainly not a horrible idea), you could always install the 120-day trial or install the OEM software without Activating it and how it works for you. It'd be easy to add a $20 PCI SATA2 card later if more drives are needed. It's always easy to spend more money.

There's no "right" choice here. Recycling stuff is good, power savings is good, and not wasting time on reusing "old" stuff is good, too. It all depends on what's important to you.

 

[IndyJaws]

I appreciate everyone's opinion on the the topic. JackMDS...you said what I wanted to hear. From what I've read, WHS doesn't need much to get it running. Yes, I could get a new mobo (and maybe I should), but I want to make the existing hardware work as well as possible. I already have an OEM copy of WHS. I already have 2 1TB drives ready to go. The main question is whether the SATA I headers I have on my current mobo are good enough to support the drives. I know I need to get a gigabit card. The main question is whether is is worth it to get both the NIC and SATA card. From what I've heard, it's not. Bottom line, just more RAM and NIC will do what I want. Bad thing is that the tower I have will suck a lot of power and a small case might be the best in the long run.

So frustrating...I wanted a consensus and now I'm not sure what to do...

 

[IndyJaws]

One more thing...can I put a micro ATX in an SX1030 Antec case? Searching Google and I'm not sure...

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: IndyJaws
can I put a micro ATX in an SX1030 Antec case?

You can generally put a micro ATX board in a standard ATX case. The difference is in some of the stand-off positions, which you can check yourself if you like. I have a mATX board in a very similar old Antec case, and I didn't have any issues.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: IndyJaws
So frustrating...I wanted a consensus and now I'm not sure what to do...

A cool thing about DIY NAS boxes / file servers is that pretty much anything goes, and you're just seeing a reflection of that from every poster's own perspective. Bottom line: You get to build it how you wish to, and it'll probably work. Faster or slower, noisier or quieter, smaller or bigger, cheap or pricey, green or not. These are all options and trade-offs. Absorb or ignore our perspectives as you wish, and don't be mislead into thinking that somebody else's opinions, preferences, whatever are a sufficient replacement for your own needs and preferences.

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: Madwand1
You can generally put a micro ATX board in a standard ATX case.

Yeah. I've never seen a Micro-ATX motherboard that wouldn't fit into an ATX case.

ATX and Micro ATX motherboard specifications.

 

[Davegod]

even if the SATAI headers did limit the drives performance, the NIC is going to get in the way first.

whether the gb nic and extra ram is worth it would depend on what you're using it for. if it's mostly backups and casual file sharing then probably no need at all. If you were wanting to stream movies between multiple machines, well that might be another story. OTOH what's a gb nic and another 512mb costing? not a lot.

I wouldn't bother with a new system unless a) you will get a real benefit and b) you're going to go the whole hog. An ultra efficient cpu etc would just leave your old inefficient psu running at it's most inefficient levels. Again consider what are you using it for. You can now buy external hard drives with gb nic that basically come with a linux installed and a lower power pc on a pcb, for file sharing and media streaming (even to a tv).

 

[RebateMonger]

Out of curiosity, I measured the data transfer rates between Windows Home Server and Windows Server 2008. I measured with both a 100 Mbps connection and a 1 Gbps connection and with both 512 MB of RAM and 2 GB of RAM in the Windows Home Server.

More details:
Windows Server 2008 x64, Intel Core2 Q6600 Processor, 8 GB of RAM, a single 1 TB Hitachi SATA hard drive.
Windows Home Server, Intel Core2 E4300 Processor, three 200 GB IDE drives and one 640 GB SATA drive in the drive pool.

I transferred about 20 GB of files from one PC to the other in both directions. I used different files to avoid errors caused by caching of previously-copied files. The files were around 4 to 5 GB apiece, which would represent copying DVD rips. I think these transfer rates are pretty good, especially considering the five-year-old IDE drives I use in the Windows Home Server. And, of course, the strong rate-limiting effect of the network connection itself.

Here's the transfer rates:

====================

From Windows Home Server to Windows Server 2008

512 MB RAM, 100 Mbps, 11 MB/s
512 MB RAM, 1 Gbps, 44 MB/s
2 GB RAM, 1 Gbps, 44 MB/s

=====================

From Windows Server 2008 to Windows Home Server

512 MB RAM, 1 Gbps, 53 MB/s
2 GB RAM, 1 Gbps, 57 MB/s

=====================

Note that these measurements aren't perfect. There were variations in transfer rate depending on the size of the file being transfered. The transfers usually started very fast (80 MB/s) then went down, and then slowly climbed to what appeared to be a steady state. But if I measured this again, I'd expect to see variations of maybe +- 2 MB/s.

 

[ViRGE]

What you're seeing on the WHS side is write buffering. The sending computer is capable of pushing data faster than your WHS drives can write it, so it's being buffered in memory until eventually you run out of memory and have to slow down the transfer. With transferring files to my WHS box, I can basically hit speeds that max out my PC's hard drive(about 60MB/sec) with large files on the first 2.5GB, at which point the transfer drops to the 40MB or so that the WHS drive on the receiving side can actually sustain.

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: ViRGE
What you're seeing on the WHS side is write buffering.

Anyway, I'm impressed that WHS can transfer files as quickly as it does. I was under the impression that the Drive Extender technology was more limiting than it is. It appears to be keeping up nicely. Maybe there were some speed improvements with Power Pack 1 of WHS?

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger

Originally posted by: ViRGE
What you're seeing on the WHS side is write buffering.

Anyway, I'm impressed that WHS can transfer files as quickly as it does. I was under the impression that the Drive Extender technology was more limiting than it is. It appears to be keeping up nicely. Maybe there were some speed improvements with Power Pack 1 of WHS?

Indeed there was. WHS is no longer taking all writes to the primary drive (the one that is split between OS and the storage pool) and then bouncing them to another drive later. Now it drops a manifest on the primary drive and immediately writes the file to its destination. This speeds it up since you're no longer (usually) trying to write files to the same drive the OS is running off of and because now the drive extender isn't constantly tying up 2+ drives trying to bounce files off of the primary drive.

 

[SAWYER]

Originally posted by: mpilchfamily
The RAM is the way to go. You'll need at least 1GB. Anything less will be pretty slow.

Not true, WHS runs smoothly on low specs

 

[JackMDS]

From Windows Home Server to Windows Server 2008

RM gets 2 GB RAM, 1 Gbps, 44 MB/s - I get 48MB/sec.

=====================

From Windows Server 2008 to Windows Home Server

RM gets 2 GB RAM, 1 Gbps, 57 MB/s - I get 56Mb/sec.

======================================

I get the above with TRENDnet TEG-S80G 10/100/1000Mbps

For all practical purpose it is the same. I can get large variation leaving everything the same and using another Giga switch.

I.e. there are significant variations between sub $100 Entry Level Giga switches.

BTW, I can find scenarios that with 512MB the Server work would slow down.

So I would not use the server with less than 1GB

I have 2GB because it was inexpensive, but I have No prove that it is really a must.

 

[BD2003]

Well, the amount of memory you need depends what you use it for. If you use it as intended, out of the box, 512mb will suffice.

For my own purposes, I have a whole number of other things running on the box.

utorrent for those huge performance sucking bittorrent downloads.

Skype attached to a USB wireless phone, which also requires its own helper application

Windows live sync to synchronize files between the server and my laptop

Syncback to backup files to an external USB drive

iTunes (ugh) to sync my iphone with - this might sound odd, but its for three main reasons - 1) iTunes is a performance hog, and I want it off my main rig, 2) All the music is already on the server, and iTunes doesnt play very well with network based libraries, 3) its the only PC that I leave on all night, which is necessary to recharge the iPhone.

PlayON media server to connect hulu and other services to my Media center and 360

Various transcoding apps to convert audio and video

All of that, combined with the standard disk balancing, file sharing, media sharing, web access and backing up that WHS does, makes my server a little hungrier for CPU and RAM than a stock WHS box, and 2GB and a dual core pentium was just so cheap I couldnt pass it all up.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger
Anyway, I'm impressed that WHS can transfer files as quickly as it does. I was under the impression that the Drive Extender technology was more limiting than it is. It appears to be keeping up nicely. Maybe there were some speed improvements with Power Pack 1 of WHS?

Recent drives are faster. With some effort and sacrifice, I think that Vista / 2008 to WHS transfers could exceed 100 MB/s -- I do that at present from Vista to 2003.