# I need a file server.



## newtekie1 (Aug 5, 2010)

I'm building a new server for a client's business, I already have an idea about what I'll be building, but I just thought I would see what everyone can come up with.

Budget: $800 *FIRM* This means absolutely not a penny more(shipping can go over $800).
Needed: Just the computer with OS.
Maximum Users: 6-7(5 currently)
Everything must be bought new from Newegg.
Must have at least RAID1 capability, so include at least 2 identical hard drives.
Must have 1TB of usable space.

I'm looking for quality and reliability more than speed here.  Their current server is all of 10 years old, and it isn't a stretch that they will try to get 10 years out of this one as well.

Here is what I had in mind.

Ready
.
.
.
Set
.
.
.
GO!


----------



## hat (Aug 5, 2010)

Computer with OS? Is this computer going to be used like a typical machine, or can it act as a dedicated NAS?


----------



## v12dock (Aug 5, 2010)

So just use a linux OS


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Aug 5, 2010)

Do you want to do a rack mount type deal or just a standard case (that accommodates a server mobo of course)?


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 5, 2010)

hat said:


> Computer with OS? Is this computer going to be used like a typical machine, or can it act as a dedicated NAS?



Dedicated server, this won't be used as a workstation, and might not even have a monitor attached after setup.



v12dock said:


> So just use a linux OS



The online back-up software they use requires Windows, no Linux unfortunately.



PVTCaboose1337 said:


> Do you want to do a rack mount type deal or just a standard case (that accommodates a server mobo of course)?



Standard case.  It doesn't even need to have a true server mobo, a very reliable desktop board will be good enough.  I actually talked them out of just using a cheap Dell desktop as their server...so that gives you an idea what they are expecting.


----------



## hat (Aug 5, 2010)

I was gonna say to build a FreeNAS server, but if they need Windblows... some greater thought needs to be put into this, heh


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 5, 2010)

First post updated with a wish list with what I had in mind.


----------



## t_ski (Aug 5, 2010)

Your list is decent.  I would have recommended you'd jump on the 1TB drives for the shell shocker deal today ($60 each and you could have had three for a raid 5 array).

What is the true purpose of this rig?  You say file server, but is it just for storage?  No domain, no authentication, no print server, etc?


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 5, 2010)

t_ski said:


> Your list is decent.  I would have recommended you'd jump on the 1TB drives for the shell shocker deal today ($60 each and you could have had three for a raid 5 array).
> 
> What is the true purpose of this rig?  You say file server, but is it just for storage?  No domain, no authentication, no print server, etc?



Pure file server, no domain, no print server, nothing.

The only thing beyond the file server role will also be a scan server, as they have a huge printer/scanner/copier combo that currently scans to each individuals desktop, and will now be scanned directly to the users folder on the server.


----------



## GENTLEMEN (Aug 5, 2010)

I'm just wondering why you chose a quad over a faster dual (or tri) if it's a file server.


----------



## Namslas90 (Aug 5, 2010)

Easy way, and you can always have them to blame later;

HP Pavilion P6540 Phenom II X4 830 8GB 1TB Windows...

and it leaves room in the budget for more mem or HD.


----------



## Phxprovost (Aug 5, 2010)

file server 
or this
Revised


----------



## t_ski (Aug 5, 2010)

If they are going to use it for scanning and archiving files, make sure they put in a policy and procedure for what can be scanned, how it will be scanned (make sure they use black & white not color) and how long the data will be kept.

Unless they are all going to be hitting the file server hard at the same time, the specs should not matter much, as long as the hardware is current.  Make sure you give them plenty of HDD space to grow and fault tolerance is a must, especially if the files are not replaceable.  Speaking of which, what about a backup solution?  Don't rely just on the raid array.

And for the raid array, raid 5 would be better than raid 1, since you get speed + fault tolerance, and rebuilds would only be for half the array.  Make sure you get all new parts with good warranty (retail chips, etc.) in case anything goes bad.  That way warranty covers the parts instead of you.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 5, 2010)

t_ski said:


> If they are going to use it for scanning and archiving files, make sure they put in a policy and procedure for what can be scanned, how it will be scanned (make sure they use black & white not color) and how long the data will be kept.
> 
> Unless they are all going to be hitting the file server hard at the same time, the specs should not matter much, as long as the hardware is current.  Make sure you give them plenty of HDD space to grow and fault tolerance is a must, especially if the files are not replaceable.  Speaking of which, what about a backup solution?  Don't rely just on the raid array.
> 
> And for the raid array, raid 5 would be better than raid 1, since you get speed + fault tolerance, and rebuilds would only be for half the array.  Make sure you get all new parts with good warranty (retail chips, etc.) in case anything goes bad.  That way warranty covers the parts instead of you.



The policy for scanning is already in place.  Most of the documents are scanned in grayscale, but there are a few forms that have to be scanned in color.  I'm not worried about it, that has already been in place since they got the scanner a few years ago.  And as I said, they've all been scanning directly to their own computers, which at the most has an 80GB hard drive(most have 40GB drives).

My build I have in mind now has 1TB of space to start out with, I figure that should be plenty for them.  Right now they are using just under 20GB on the data partition of their current server, and with adding the scans to the server I can't imagine them using up 1TB any time soon.

Also, I've kind of already touched on the backup, there will be an off-site backup that they already use via an online backup company.  They also have an on-site external hard drive back-up.

And yeah, I want the hardware covered under warranty which is why I specified everything needs to be new, so I'm not on the hook for anything.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 5, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Budget: $800 *FIRM* This means absolutely not a penny more(shipping can go over $800).
> Needed: Just the computer with OS.
> Maximum Users: 6-7(5 currently)


You're going to have to use Linux.  Windows Server with 5 CALs cost $600+ and you'll need to purchase more CALs as clients increase.


Online backup = big no-no.  Major security breech and little chance the data will be available when you need it.  Not to mention expensive when there's lots of data.

Basically, there's no way to do it right on $800.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 5, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> You're going to have to use Linux.  Windows Server with 5 CALs cost $700 and you'll need to purchase more CALs as clients increase.



Who said you need Windows Server?  Windows 7 Pro can handled up to 10 users easily, they only have 5.



FordGT90Concept said:


> Online backup = big no-no.  Major security breech and little chance the data will be available when you need it.  Not to mention expensive when there's lots of data.



Security breach how?  Could the 256-bit encryption used during the transmission be a security breach, or the password based encryption that is used to encrypt the data before transmission to the security breach?

Oh, and the data is stored in a data center about 20min away if anything ever happens.  Their entire building could burn down, and a few quick car trips later, and they will be back up and running with 98% of their data on a new computer, probably in under 4 hours.



FordGT90Concept said:


> Basically, there's no way to do it right on $800.



Sure there is.


----------



## t_ski (Aug 5, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> The policy for scanning is already in place.  Most of the documents are scanned in grayscale, but there are a few forms that have to be scanned in color.  I'm not worried about it, that has already been in place since they got the scanner a few years ago.  And as I said, they've all been scanning directly to their own computers, which at the most has an 80GB hard drive(most have 40GB drives).
> 
> My build I have in mind now has 1TB of space to start out with, I figure that should be plenty for them.  Right now they are using just under 20GB on the data partition of their current server, and with adding the scans to the server I can't imagine them using up 1TB any time soon.
> 
> ...


Just wanted to make sure you got your bases covered.  This is the kind of stuff we deal with at work, and it's easier to do when you are planning than when it's done and you are having to go back and fill in the holes.

Any chance of finding a mobo with a three year warranty to match the CPU?


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Aug 5, 2010)

What about Windows Home server for the OS?  For what they're doing, you could get one of the pre-built systems, (which will have tech support from the manufacturer) add a HDD or 2 and be done with it.  WHS also backs up the clients that are attached to it so that would also be a benefit.

Edit: HP StorageWorks X510 Data Vault Intel Pentium E5200 2.5 GHz 2GB DDR2 Memory 2TB HDD & Windows Home Server OS installed (Q2051A)  for $730 with 2 each 1TB HDDS installed. Done.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Aug 5, 2010)

you could probably look around craigslist for a solid p4 system for 100 bucks and just replace the psu. there is one for sale in my area that is an IBM eserver with a p4 3.0 ghz, 512 ram and has a scsi controller included. so i would just have to buy a couple of these and be done with it. no point on reinventing the wheel for a file server.


----------



## mrhuggles (Aug 5, 2010)

yeah i use a 400mhz g4 as my fileserver, you dont need alot of cpu power really.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 5, 2010)

t_ski said:


> Just wanted to make sure you got your bases covered.  This is the kind of stuff we deal with at work, and it's easier to do when you are planning than when it's done and you are having to go back and fill in the holes.
> 
> Any chance of finding a mobo with a three year warranty to match the CPU?



Thanks.

Swapped out the motherboard for an ASUS with a 3 year warranty for only $10 more.



thebluebumblebee said:


> What about Windows Home server for the OS?  For what they're doing, you could get one of the pre-built systems, (which will have tech support from the manufacturer) add a HDD or 2 and be done with it.  WHS also backs up the clients that are attached to it so that would also be a benefit.
> 
> Edit: HP StorageWorks X510 Data Vault Intel Pentium E5200 2.5 GHz 2GB DDR2 Memory 2TB HDD & Windows Home Server OS installed (Q2051A)  for $730 with 2 each 1TB HDDS installed. Done.



I'm not a fan of home server, and it is particularly a pain in the ass when trying to setup a office wide shared scanner like they used.  I tried that solution in th past, and it just didn't work out nearly as well as a more widely used OS.  And really, for the money, I think I'm getting a better machine with more room to expand in the future.



Easy Rhino said:


> you could probably look around craigslist for a solid p4 system for 100 bucks and just replace the psu. there is one for sale in my area that is an IBM eserver with a p4 3.0 ghz, 512 ram and has a scsi controller included. so i would just have to buy a couple of these and be done with it. no point on reinventing the wheel for a file server.



I wouldn't feel comfortable doing that, I'd prefer something new that I know isn't about to die from a old motherboard or something.  Again, they want this thing to last a decade.

I'm all for saving money, but they've given me an $800 budget for the machine, and they are paying me for the time to build it and install it, so I'd like to give them the best possible for their money, even if it is overkill for a file server. But thank you for the suggestion.



mrhuggles said:


> yeah i use a 400mhz g4 as my fileserver, you dont need alot of cpu power really.



Yeah, I dropped the CPU back to an X2 from the X4, mainly so that I could afford the ASUS board with a 3 year warranty.

I'm feeling pretty confident with the system in my original post, unless anyone has any suggestions on changes to make it better?


----------



## Easy Rhino (Aug 5, 2010)

you dont really need 4 gigs of ram if you want to save 40 bucks and spend it elsewhere. also, what kind of files will they be pulling? large files or a bunch of small ones? if you have 5 people accessing large files from that server at the same time those HDDs will be too slow.


----------



## freaksavior (Aug 5, 2010)

what about itx? atom d510 maybe?


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 5, 2010)

Easy Rhino said:


> you dont really need 4 gigs of ram if you want to save 40 bucks and spend it elsewhere. also, what kind of files will they be pulling? large files or a bunch of small ones? if you have 5 people accessing large files from that server at the same time those HDDs will be too slow.



Actually, its 8GB... I don't really know where else I'd spend the money if I went to 4GB or 2GB.

Their file server now has 2 5400RPM 2MB cache drives, and they don't any speed problems, and they are only on a 100Mb/s network.  I don't see why the two WD Black Drives in RAID1 wouldn't be fast enough.  I'm not sure what files they will be accessing, the biggest will probably be the scanned documents, everything else will be text documents and a few Quickbooks company files.



freaksavior said:


> what about itx? atom d510 maybe?



That could be interesting, but don't most of the ITX Atom boards have crap onboard RAID?


----------



## Easy Rhino (Aug 5, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Actually, its 8GB... I don't really know where else I'd spend the money if I went to 4GB or 2GB.
> 
> Their file server now has 2 5400RPM 2MB cache drives, and they don't any speed problems, and they are only on a 100Mb/s network.  I don't see why the two WD Black Drives in RAID1 wouldn't be fast enough.  I'm not sure what files they will be accessing, the biggest will probably be the scanned documents, everything else will be text documents and a few Quickbooks company files.



ah yea, then you dont need faster drives


----------



## mrhuggles (Aug 5, 2010)

i would suggest 5400rpm drives, they run a whole lot less hot and thats a good thing.. also they tend to last a little longer for me.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 5, 2010)

mrhuggles said:


> i would suggest 5400rpm drives, they run a whole lot less hot and thats a good thing.. also they tend to last a little longer for me.



Yeah, I was torn between the Seagate LP drives and the WD Blacks...

I think I will go with the LP drives instead, I don't think the Blacks will be needed, though the WD drives _do_ have a 5 year warranty... Hmmm...now I'm torn again...


----------



## Disparia (Aug 6, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> That could be interesting, but don't most of the ITX Atom boards have crap onboard RAID?



In the near future I'm going to build a home server with this one:






Obviously I plan on putting it in a Q08.

Can't vouch for the board yet, just can say that I like it's features. Intel NIC, IPMI, onboard USB port, and a PCI x16 (x4) slot - which I'm going to use for a tv tuner or largest folding card that will fit there.

The RAID is ICH9R. Going to be good enough for my needs. There's always the PCIe slot for a nicer controller.

edit: After using 24 RE3's at work, and several Blacks/Blues in my home systems, I'm getting Blacks for mine!


----------



## freaksavior (Aug 6, 2010)

Jizzler said:


> In the near future I'm going to build a home server with this one:
> 
> http://www.theburnerishot.com/photo/Lian-Li-PC-Q08-with-X7SPA-HF.jpg
> Obviously I plan on putting it in a Q08.
> ...



There you go 



After doing this, its not real practical. You could go with a lower end mini itx board but you lose the pci-e if you ever wanted to add a raid card.

2gb of ram vs your 8 (why 8?)

Lian Li is the only ITX case with more than 1 x 3.5 bay so thats a bit pricey.


----------



## Geofrancis (Aug 6, 2010)

if i was going to make a file server for more than a handfull of users i would go with atleast a core2duo or an AMD X2 chip.
 i used an atom board for my server but i found that file copying and reading is very cpu intensive when you start doing more than one at a time and the atom was just not fast enough. because it was very single threaded and i was constantly having one core maxed out. if you couple that with onboard or software raid it will grind to a halt. thats why i was forced to upgrade to a e6300 but any core 2 should do even a celeron as long as its a dual core.


----------



## 3volvedcombat (Aug 6, 2010)

Geofrancis said:


> if i was going to make a file server for more than a handfull of users i would go with atleast a core2duo or an AMD X2 chip.
> i used an atom board for my server but i found that file copying and reading is very cpu intensive when you start doing more than one at a time and the atom was just not fast enough. because it was very single threaded and i was constantly having one core maxed out. if you couple that with onboard or software raid it will grind to a halt. thats why i was forced to upgrade to a e6300 but any core 2 should do even a celeron as long as its a dual core.



My thought exactly.

Grab a e6500 and play with your FILES!


----------



## Disparia (Aug 6, 2010)

freaksavior said:


> There you go [url]http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l294/freaksavior/th_Screenshot2010-08-05at64818PM.png[/URL]
> 
> After doing this, its not real practical. You could go with a lower end mini itx board but you lose the pci-e if you ever wanted to add a raid card.
> 
> ...



Can get an mATX case pretty cheap though.

OTOH, that Lian Li would raise my morale at work!


----------



## TIGR (Aug 6, 2010)

I haven't read through the entire thread, but recommend a system based on a motherboard with Intel's ICH10R chipset, and suggest you run three or four HDDs in RAID 5 (determine capacity of HDDs to be used based on how much overall capacity is needed). For power consumption and reliability, go with low-RPM HDDs. RAID 5 across four small-capacity drives would address performance where performance is needed on a server (disk access) while providing good data security. Dual gigabit LAN wouldn't hurt—even if you can't saturate a single gigabit connection with the drives you install originally, upgraded HDDs down the line might benefit.

The 450VX you listed would be fine ... I'd use a 400CX.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 6, 2010)

TIGR said:


> I haven't read through the entire thread, but recommend a system based on a motherboard with Intel's ICH10R chipset, and suggest you run three or four HDDs in RAID 5 (determine capacity of HDDs to be used based on how much overall capacity is needed). For power consumption and reliability, go with low-RPM HDDs. RAID 5 across four small-capacity drives would address performance where performance is needed on a server (disk access) while providing good data security. Dual gigabit LAN wouldn't hurt—even if you can't saturate a single gigabit connection with the drives you install originally, upgraded HDDs down the line might benefit.
> 
> The 450VX you listed would be fine ... I'd use a 400CX.



All good suggestions.  Though I went with the AMD platform because of the native SATA 6Gb/s support and the seemingly longer lasting socket, though I guess with the drive I plan on getting and the fact that they probably will never upgrade the server once it is installed that is kind of pointless.  Is the ICH10R controller that much better than the SB850 controller?

I'm not worried about performance so much, they have a 100Mb/s network, and won't be upgrading any time soon(the building is wired with Cat5, not Cat5e, just regular old Cat5 so no Gigabit without an entire re-wire, and they aren't doing that ever...).  And actually, the performance of their current server is fine for them really, the only reason they are replacing it is because it is dying.

I actually prefer fewer larger drives than more smaller drives.  If I go with a 2 Drive RAID1 setup, one drive can fail, and I'll be fine.  If I go with a 3-4 Drive RAID5 array, one drive can fail and I'll be fine, but because there are more drive, I'm more likely to have one fail.


----------



## freaksavior (Aug 6, 2010)

Check my server specs. Its probably got $6-700 in it and i bought most of it second hand and it works great (for the most part now that I found my networking issue) 

I think your original build is good but skip the 8gb. not needed at all.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 6, 2010)

freaksavior said:


> Check my server specs. Its probably got $6-700 in it and i bought most of it second hand and it works great (for the most part now that I found my networking issue)
> 
> I think your original build is good but skip the 8gb. not needed at all.



Yeah, kind of just reworked the original.  Switched to an Intel processor with a P55 board and dropped down to 4GB.

What was your networking issue anyways, I remember that thread?


----------



## TIGR (Aug 6, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> All good suggestions.  Though I went with the AMD platform because of the native SATA 6Gb/s support and the seemingly longer lasting socket, though I guess with the drive I plan on getting and the fact that they probably will never upgrade the server once it is installed that is kind of pointless.  Is the ICH10R controller that much better than the SB850 controller?
> 
> I'm not worried about performance so much, they have a 100Mb/s network, and won't be upgrading any time soon(the building is wired with Cat5, not Cat5e, just regular old Cat5 so no Gigabit without an entire re-wire, and they aren't doing that ever...).  And actually, the performance of their current server is fine for them really, the only reason they are replacing it is because it is dying.
> 
> I actually prefer fewer larger drives than more smaller drives.  If I go with a 2 Drive RAID1 setup, one drive can fail, and I'll be fine.  If I go with a 3-4 Drive RAID5 array, one drive can fail and I'll be fine, but because there are more drive, I'm more likely to have one fail.



Intel just plain has more time and effort into their integrated RAID solutions so typically the performance is better than what you get from AMD. Does it really matter? Truth be told, probably not.

Especially not for this case from the sound of it. It sounds like you could just toss in a low-end AM2/AM2+/AM3 board and CPU and they'd be more than happy with that and RAID 1 across two 1TB drives.

Edit to add: what kind of warranty do you offer with your systems? Just curious as a fellow builder.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 6, 2010)

I offer a 1 year warranty for free on the hardware with the option for a 3 year warranty for $100(which works out fine since I almost always use parts with at least 3 year manufacturer warranties anyway).


----------

