# Build me a file server!



## 7.62 (Mar 1, 2010)

Hi all, 

I have been asked by a not so computer literate friend to build him a file server so he can log on and get autocad drawings from interstate.

I know that I will need a SSD, and a good processor, but mind you he will not be playing games.

Im thinking 

AMD dual core
4 Gig dual channel
1TB HDD and a 64Gig SSD for OS

Can you recommend a MOBO?

Please advice.

TIA


----------



## W1zzard (Mar 1, 2010)

2 gb should be enough

get 2x 1.5 tb hdds and run (software) raid 1
no need for ssd imo


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Mar 1, 2010)

Why would you need an SSD for a file server? Same actually goes for a fast processor and 4GB of RAM. An Atom with 512MB RAM can already fill your Gbit line. (just look at prebuilt NAS devices) So I would recommend some Celeron/Sempron to allow it to run all kinds of fancy services. Find the cheapest memory you can find, 2GB is sufficient. Only get 4 if you really plan on giving it something to do.


----------



## 7.62 (Mar 1, 2010)

I dont  know anything about RAID
I dont know how to set it up, and dont know how to fix it.

OK, dropping from 4g to 2g. So you dont think I need a dual core CPU?


----------



## slyfox2151 (Mar 1, 2010)

why does it need a SSD? if its just a file server and your transfering interstate (over the web) your going to be limited by your network connection long before the HDD.


i would go the cheapest dual core (you could even use an ATOM for a file server)
cheapest 2gb of ram. (even less if you go ATOM, 512 would be enough)
either an asus or gigabyte motherboard (again cheap with enough sata ports so you can add more drives in future, say 6)
1 1TB hard drive to start with,
and a decent brand 350 watt PSU. (corsair, seasonic, antec ect) no noname brands.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Mar 1, 2010)

If you do not know anything about file servers I would not recommend building one for someone else. When shit hits the fan your friend will be coming to you.


----------



## sttubs (Mar 1, 2010)

Would Windows Home Server work for his needs? That's a pretty straight forward build & software package.


----------



## DirectorC (Mar 1, 2010)

7.62 said:


> I dont  know anything about RAID
> I dont know how to set it up, and dont know how to fix it.
> 
> OK, dropping from 4g to 2g. So you dont think I need a dual core CPU?



It's actually pretty simple.  You buy several hard drives of the same model and size, enable RAID in BIOS, press Ctrl+I or whatever to get into the RAID management utility right after POST, and then in there you create your RAID array.  I suggest RAID5.  RAID is actually pretty easy stuff, all you need to understand is how it works: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID read the first couple of sections and you'll be good to go.

You can't make a serious file server without RAID, so learn.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Mar 1, 2010)

DirectorC said:


> RAID is actually pretty easy stuff, all you need to understand is how it works:



Indeed, the same goes for timetravel actually. It is pretty easy stuff, all you need to understand is how it works.

RAID 5 is good for larger storage systems. If that single TB of storage is sufficient RAID 1 would be smarter, better redundancy. And when using RAID 1 you are better off letting the OS handle it as you can then just move the array to another PC in case of motherboard failure.


----------



## DirectorC (Mar 1, 2010)

Go with RAID1 if you want but you aren't going to get the spiffy speed benefits of the striping in RAID5.  You can shift over to a couple of 1TB drives, but this RAID5 will do the same job (appear as 1TB) cheaper (3x56 vs 2x90), and with striping, so tell me again why RAID1?

Anyway, I built it:


----------



## 7.62 (Mar 1, 2010)

Your right about the internet connection. That is going to be the bottleneck here (In Australia)
I was going to put a copy of XP onto this machine, would that be enough? or Windows 7?
How does this sound for hardware.

AMD Athlon II X2 240
Gigabyte GA-MA74GMT-S2 mATX Motherboard
Corsair VS2GB1333D3 2GB (1x2GB) DDR
2X Samsung EcoGreen F2 500GB HD502HI
Thermaltake V3 Black Edition with 450W

$450 AUD


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Mar 1, 2010)

Like I said, fault tolerance. RAID 1 actually does get a boost in read performance, RAID 5 gets a hit in write performance and CPU load. Either way it won't matter as the user will be using an internet connection to access the machine.


----------



## DirectorC (Mar 1, 2010)

7.62 said:


> Your right about the internet connection. That is going to be the bottleneck here (In Australia)
> I was going to put a copy of XP onto this machine, would that be enough? or Windows 7?
> How does this sound for hardware.
> 
> ...



Green drives are likely to fail under RAID setup, if you were thinking of going RAID1 with em.  If you're just spreading data between the two then it will be fine.  But if you're not going for RAID then just make sure you have some sort of backup solution implemented.  That's about it, the specs you listed look good on paper.



DanTheBanjoman said:


> Like I said, fault tolerance. RAID 1 actually does get a boost in read performance, RAID 5 gets a hit in write performance and CPU load. Either way it won't matter as the user will be using an internet connection to access the machine.



Fair enough, but I don't see how RAID1 is more fault tolerant.  Both RAID1 and RAID5 can function with a missing drive, both will need to be rebuilt if a drive goes bad.  RAID1 appears to be more expensive per GB and not deliver the striping performance of RAID5... that is all my argument is.


----------



## 7.62 (Mar 1, 2010)

Seriously I know nothing about RAID.

I was going to take all his data from the dying computer and put it on the new one.
I as going to format his laptop (dying computer) and put windows 7 on it.

Then set up the new computer so that he can access his old data via the internet while he is over seas. A mate of his also needs to accesss this data.


----------



## DirectorC (Mar 1, 2010)

7.62 said:


> Seriously I know nothing about RAID.



Yeah but if you read like 2 paragraphs about it you will get the basic way it works and how to take care of making an array and fixing one if it goes bad.

All I ask is that you have some sort of backup solution implemented.  Whether you set a timed backup from one drive to another, or whatever.  You may not be used to hard drive failures, but they happen, especially in high data traffic environments.  So be nice to your buddies and make sure that their data isn't in just one storage device at any time.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Mar 1, 2010)

DirectorC said:


> Fair enough, but I don't see how RAID1 is more fault tolerant.  Both RAID1 and RAID5 can function with a missing drive, both will need to be rebuilt if a drive goes bad.  RAID1 appears to be more expensive per GB and not deliver the striping performance of RAID5... that is all my argument is.



RAID 1 is not slower than RAID 5, the only reason why RAID 5 _can_ give higher speeds is due to the higher number of disks. Though with every disk added the reliability goes down. Apart from RAID 1 being more expensive per GB your arguments are incorrect.


----------



## 7.62 (Mar 1, 2010)

Hmmm.

I have read that RAID Wiki, but im not sure how to set it up, or how to maintain it.

I like the idea of writing data to 2 physical drives. Whats the one called? and is that easy to set up?


----------



## DirectorC (Mar 1, 2010)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> RAID 1 is not slower than RAID 5, the only reason why RAID 5 _can_ give higher speeds is due to the higher number of disks. Though with every disk added the reliability goes down. Apart from RAID 1 being more expensive per GB your arguments are incorrect.



Wait but RAID5 has striping, meaning it functions by reading all the data off the drives at once, just like RAID0.  RAID1 is just one drive, it has no speed boost.  I have seen the HDTune bench for a 3-drive RAID5, it was running like a 2-drive RAID0, twice as fast as a single drive, and RAID1 runs at the speed of just one drive correct? We literally had a discussion about like 2 days ago and I saw the proof myself of a 3-drive RAID5 using striping to achieve 2-drive RAID0 speed.  Correct me if I am wrong that RAID1 only works like one drive and offers no speed boost.


----------



## Frick (Mar 1, 2010)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> If you do not know anything about file servers I would not recommend building one for someone else. When shit hits the fan your friend will be coming to you.



This. So much this.


----------



## 7.62 (Mar 1, 2010)

Cant I just build a desktop computer and put all his stuff on there?
That might sound silly to you lot, but thats pretty much what I was planning


----------



## DirectorC (Mar 1, 2010)

OK Dan, I used my own Wiki link: RAID1: "Increased read performance occurs when using a multi-threaded operating system that supports split seeks, as well as a very small performance reduction when writing"

But does that really mean that you can get RAID0 read speeds from a RAID1?


----------



## DirectorC (Mar 1, 2010)

7.62 said:


> Cant I just build a desktop computer and put all his stuff on there?
> That might sound silly to you lot, but thats pretty much what I was planning



No that's pretty much what I figured.  But when you say file server you put special emphasis on the files stored in it and that's where we begin buggin you about FAULT TOLERANCE.  This is the KEY concern of mass file storage, and RAID1/RAID5 are actually seen as easier to deal with than backups.


----------



## 7.62 (Mar 1, 2010)

Ok so which one writes data to 2 different disks in real time?
What ever it is, is it easy to setup?


----------



## DirectorC (Mar 1, 2010)

7.62 said:


> Ok so which one writes data to 2 different disks in real time?
> What ever it is, is it easy to setup?



1. Both RAID0 and RAID1 do that.  RAID0 just splits the data between drives and has no fault tolerance.  RAID1 mirrors one drive onto the other.

2. It's very easy.  Like I said, in BIOS you enable RAID, and assign the SATA ports that the drives are plugged into as RAID drives.  After POST, you will see a prompt to let you enter a RAID configuration utility, with a key combo.  In there, you simply select the drives and the type of array (you'll be selecting Mirroring).  That's it.  Windows will see it as one drive and you will not have to mess with it again unless one of the drives fails.  If one drive fails you can still run the file server, and when you want to rebuild just plug in a new one and once again, it's pretty much point and click.

---

Here is a link to a chart that sort of confirms my assumption about the relative speed differences between RAID1, RAID0, and RAID5: http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/raid/levels/comp-c.html

Clearly only RAID0 and RAID5 offer speed increases while RAID1 appears to perform only slightly faster than a single drive.

But you don't NEED the speed boost for your server so RAID1 is fine for you.


----------



## 7.62 (Mar 1, 2010)

Thanks DirectorC

The speed is not really that important as the internet connection will be the major slow down, and we have pretty poor internet here in Australia. To make matters worse, he will be using wireless broadband too.

I will give the RAID1 a go, that sounds like its what im after.


----------



## DirectorC (Mar 1, 2010)

Good stuff, good luck.  This was a fun chat


----------



## TIGR (Mar 1, 2010)

Hey 7.62, you're getting good input here already from Dan and Director— your friend will be fine with RAID 1 _or_ 5. Each has its relative advantages and disadvantages but both will safeguard data and improve performance when reading data from the server (more than will likely be appreciated anyway). RAID 1 will require two hard drives and RAID 5 would require three (more if you like). There's also RAID 10, which I like, but it would be overkill here.

But what I do want to add is about the network bottleneck. I'm unclear on whether this will be accessed remotely (over the Internet), or locally (over a LAN). If it's over a LAN, it would be good to get a motherboard with dual 10/100/1000Mbps controllers so you can bridge connections and eliminate/reduce that transfer bottleneck and better take advantage of the performance boost RAID will give the machine. Then, if the machine(s) that will be accessing the file server over the network have less than dual 10/100/1000Mbps connections, add NICs as needed to open up the connection on that end as well. I have no idea what your friend's network configuration looks like, and this might require an extra switch ... but I would consider that part of the build. It's just something to consider—but this is only if the file server is being accessed over a LAN (if it will be a remote connection, this won't help).


----------



## sansoo22 (Mar 1, 2010)

I'm not a RAID expert like Dan or Director but I know they are fairly easy to set up.  Seriously if you can setup windows you could probably handle a RAID array.  As far as hardware goes my home file server that has FTP access to it is running windows XP and a socket 478 2.8ghz Intel with 2gigs of RAM.  Its not blazing fast but it does the trick.  I also built my version of windows and stripped out anything that wasn't necessary for being a file server.

As far as RAID goes its not set up on my server cuz of the ancient board in it.  But I was reading about RAID 0+1 or 1+0 and wondering how its performance compared to 1 and 5?


----------



## TIGR (Mar 1, 2010)

Sansoo, RAID 1+0 is the same as RAID 10, and 0+1 is the same concept but in reverse (there are some complexities to the difference, though). All else being equal, RAID 10 will be faster than RAID 1 because it features striping whereas RAID 1 does not. RAID 10 will outperform RAID 5 as well, but RAID 5 will be cheaper per GB of usable space (again, all else being equal). Here's a good link regarding that.

They all have their place. 

But yes, all are much simpler to set up than most people think. RAID is intimidating until you actually try and and end up going "wow, so that's really it?"

I don't mean to go off topic but I hope this might further assist the OP as well.


----------



## IggSter (Mar 1, 2010)

May I suggest looking at this http://www.tranquilpc-shop.co.uk/acatalog/HOME_SERVERS.html


Might be better getting an off the shelf home server or at least it may give you some ideas for your build.


----------



## slyfox2151 (Mar 1, 2010)

hi - for your best option IMO, skip down to the bottem of my post, but i do susgest you also read the rest of it.

i think some of you are going overboard with the raid setup and its getting confusing.

Best option is no raid at all, just backup the data somewhere else, different pc or onto a disk.
the only down side is if the disk does break, you wont be able to access it.... but then again how often does that happen? not very often.. your HDD is likely to last more then 3 years even 5.


if your going to go RAID, these are your options.

Raid 1 = best option for you IMO, it has the best redundency, it dosnt stripe data or do parity instead it has an exact copy on a 2nd drive, if one drive dies you can still access the data. 
its also a lot faster/easyer to rebuild a RAID1 should one disk fail, and less likely somthing will go wrong.

with raid 5, yes it has higher READ performance... but its limited by your internet upload speed (less then 1mbps in australia most of the time), its also a bit more complicated for the system as it needs to stripe and parity the data taking a fair amount of cpu power on a low end system.
it will also take a fairly long time to rebuild on larger arrays.



ok now thats out of the way,

SETUP

the easiest way to do this would be with Either XP Vista / Win7 dosnt matter but XP would use less resourses. not by much tho.

then once your OS is installed grab an FTP server, i would recomend Filezilla for a FREE easy to use server: http://filezilla-project.org/ 
im currently using it in a lan enviroment and its working great.

you will need to Port forward to the server (most likely port 21), create some accounts and share the directorys, its that simple.



as for the PC
get something LOW POWER its a file server, it reads writes and sends data on the network.... thats all it does... it dosnt take much to perform that task even with a raid array. 

look at something like an ATOM or low end Dual core semprom / celaron. 512 mb of ram (1gb if win7 / vista for best performance) 

if your going to use RAID 1 you can set it up inside windows to mirror Disk 1 to Disk 2. so any motherboard will do (the motherboard does not need to support RAID the OS will do it)


he does not need a hardware raid neither chipset raid.

hope this clears thing up for you,


EDIT one last thing... this is prolly your best option imo.

go down to your local UMART (aka very cheap pc store) and grab your self one of these http://www.umart.com.au/pro/products_listnew.phtml?id=10&id2=126&bid=2&sid=53852

its called a NAS (network attached storage), it does exacly what you want File shareing over the internet
it will likely be cheaper and even easyer to setup. it supports FTP so all you will need is an FTP client program to login to the device and download/upload data. 

Simple, buy it. plug it in. follow the directions to configure it as either JBOD or Raid1, Port forward port 21 to the NAS and your good to go.. if you need any more help setting it up just ask the forum in a new thread or me .


----------



## alucasa (Mar 1, 2010)

Might be worth looking into one of my build logs.

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=89981

I am not using RAID though, just JBOD. For critical data, I use a 500gb USB backup drive.


----------



## TIGR (Mar 1, 2010)

slyfox2151 said:


> Raid 0 = best option for you IMO, it has the best redundency, it dosnt stripe data or do parity instead it has an exact copy on a 2nd drive, if one drive dies you can still access the data.
> its also a lot faster/easyer to rebuild a RAID0 should one disk fail, and less likely somthing will go wrong.



I'm guessing these were just typos—but before we get him really confused, RAID 0 is striping, not mirroring. I think you meant RAID 1 and just want to clarify for the OP.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Mar 1, 2010)

would this work?

http://techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116218


edit: that deal is up


----------



## alucasa (Mar 1, 2010)

Get the cheapest cpu. It doesn't even need to be dual-core. I have been using a Celeron M550 (2.0ghz single core, 27w) with no problem since April 2009.

Basically, get everything cheapest with exception of mobo for more SATA ports, or if you are willing to go for performance, get a raid card.


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 1, 2010)

A file server doesn't need to be a power house.  I just put together this for a group of friends that are rooming together: http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWishDetail.aspx?WishListNumber=17646887

It is a big dumping spot for all of their music and movies, serves 5 people with said music and movies almost constantly when they aren't at school or work, and works great.

Differences between RAID1 and RAID5:

For the purpose of the argument, lets just say we are looking to achieve 1.5TB of usable storage space.  That means for a RAID1 array, two 1.5TB hard drives, and for a RAID5 array three 750GB hard drives.

The speed difference:  Read speeds from both arrays will be about the same.  Reason being is that with RAID5 you are reading from all three disks at the same time, and with RAID1 you are reading from both.  However, the 750GB drives will be slower than the 1.5TB drives. Write speeds, that is where things get really interesting.  A RAID1 array will write at the same speed as a single drive.  RAID5 on the other hand, varies greatly based on the controller.  I've seen RAID5 arrays that had simply amazing write speeds, and I've seen RAID5 arrays that had worse writes speeds than a single drive.

Fault Tolarance:  I would exactly say a RAID5 array has worse fault tolarance than the RAID1 array.  Both can survive a single drive failure without loosing any data.  And both are completely destroyed by a second drive failure.  However, because the RAID5 array has more hard drive, it is more likely to have a failure.  So, lets assume we have a drive failure, the RAID5 array is twice as likely to have another failure before you can rebuild the array with a new drive.

Price per GB:  Well it depends on where you are, I can only speak for pricing in the US, but RAID1 is cheaper.  Two 1.5TB drives are going to run about $180.  Three 750GB drives will cost you about $240.  Plus there is the extra electricity cost of running a third drive 24/7.


----------



## 7.62 (Mar 1, 2010)

You guys are great, thanks so much.

Im feeling much more confident now. I will buy 2 500gig HDD, and set them up for RAID5
Install Windows 7 on a cheap AMD dual core, and 2G RAM. This is only because when he comes back from interstate, he will sit in front of it and use it.

Thanks again guys, you have schooled me big time


----------



## TIGR (Mar 1, 2010)

7.62, you will require at least three hard drives to run RAID 5.

I said that in one of my replies.


----------



## MohawkAngel (Mar 2, 2010)

I'm used to build the lowest price computer in my place even lowest than most special prices in stores I can help you. I'm not the power rig builder but I'm the power money saver 

Build a server like my old computer could also use it as gaming rig and HTPC:

Asus M3A78-EM Onboard ATI Radeon 3200, Realtek gigabit lan, 8.1 sound, DVI-D and HDMI
Phenom X2 550BE 3.1gigs duocore 6megs cache
4X1 gig or 2X2 gigs Crucial Rendition DDR800 not useful to go for 667 its almost same price as 800 unless you find a real good deal on used 667.
Find any case-psu combo around 450watts 

Not THE cheapest but will do the job you want. If you need lower price than that write me back ill suggest even cheaper.


----------



## TIGR (Mar 2, 2010)

The Asus P5Q Deluxe would give you dual gigabit LAN connections, Matrix RAID (best integrated RAID I know of) support, and ability to use inexpensive DDR2 and low-end socket 775 CPUs.


----------



## slyfox2151 (Mar 2, 2010)

sorry yes i did mean Raid 1 in my post,

i still think it would be a much better and cheaper option to just buy a 2 disk nas server. 

they cost about $250 and take minutes to setup. you dont have to worry about anything like installing OS and Server/shareing software, its all done for you.


----------



## DirectorC (Mar 2, 2010)

slyfox2151 said:


> they cost about $250 and take minutes to setup. you dont have to worry about anything like installing OS and Server/shareing software, its all done for you.



But what else can you do with a NAS server?  You can't set up any other services if needed, right?  With a cheap little file server with a full featured OS you can do anything...


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Mar 2, 2010)

DirectorC said:


> But what else can you do with a NAS server?  You can't set up any other services if needed, right?  With a cheap little file server with a full featured OS you can do anything...



Most run some embedded Linux. If there is some module or hack to get SSH access you can do anything you want. Many devices can be used for quite some different things that way.


----------



## TIGR (Mar 2, 2010)

Regarding the NAS vs a dedicated system debate, I'd say neither and just go DAS (didn't say so earlier because the OP didn't ask for that). Insufficient SATA ports? Add a controller. Not enough space? Get a bigger case. Combine resources, save money, improve performance. The exiguous resources needed to run and share a RAID array over a network hardly justify the cost, power consumption, time, and work of dedicated CPU/memory/motherboard/PSU etc. in most scenarios. Obviously, there are exceptions.


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 2, 2010)

DirectorC said:


> But what else can you do with a NAS server?  You can't set up any other services if needed, right?  With a cheap little file server with a full featured OS you can do anything...



Besides the fact that it has already been mentioned that this machine will also be used as a workstation.

But besides that, for a basic 2 bay NAS with a 1000mbps connection, your looking to spend $120, add another $170 for two 1TB drives and shipping and your up over $300.

While the fully functional computer that I recommended is only $360 shipped.  The extra $60 is worth having a fully functional computer, and all the benefits that come with it.  Such as the ability to easily add extra storage, which is impossible with the $120 NAS.


----------



## DirectorC (Mar 2, 2010)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> Most run some embedded Linux. If there is some module or hack to get SSH access you can do anything you want. Many devices can be used for quite some different things that way.



But isn't that like saying we're turning a Linux-based hardware firewall into an application server?


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 2, 2010)

DirectorC said:


> But isn't that like saying we're turning a Linux-based hardware firewall into an application server?



Not to mention "hacking" it to run applications kind of throws the easy of use argument right out the window...


----------

