Building a file server

Hey guys I am going to be putting together a file server for one of my friends business. Basically they want to have it networked so that they can all have a central place for the files, mostly quickbook type things.

Now considering its only going to be a file server:
-Probably a Pentium 4 either socket 775 or 478
-Either 2x SATA 500 gig running some form of RAID (5?) or 2x SCSI drives running some form of RAID.
-Probably 2x512 mb of RAM
-Quality 500w PSU (fortron, OCZ, ...)
-Either onboard Gigabit NIC or PCI Gigabit NIC

So should I get a normal consumer motherboard or should I get somthing like a tyan a true entry level board. Also other suggestions about HDD's and SATA v. SCSI are welcome.

Thanks

Archer36 said:

Hey guys I am going to be putting together a file server for one of my friends business. Basically they want to have it networked so that they can all have a central place for the files, mostly quickbook type things.

Now considering its only going to be a file server:
-Probably a Pentium 4 either socket 775 or 478

Click to expand...

Should be plenty of power. Maybe you want something ore energy effiecnt, to save on power useage, though? Maybe a C3 or something with cpu frequency scaling (powernow/speedstep/cool'n'quiet).

-Either 2x SATA 500 gig running some form of RAID (5?) or 2x SCSI drives running some form of RAID.

Click to expand...

RAID 5 is an excellent choice foor a file server, but you need at least 3 drives. I also suggest investing in a good hardware controller. SATA should be fine, but get something like a seagate with a 5 year warrenty instead of the usual 1 or 3.

-Probably 2x512 mb of RAM
-Quality 500w PSU (fortron, OCZ, ...)
-Either onboard Gigabit NIC or PCI Gigabit NIC

Click to expand...

I suggest a PCI-Express NIC if you don't use an onboard one.

So should I get a normal consumer motherboard or should I get somthing like a tyan a true entry level board. Also other suggestions about HDD's and SATA v. SCSI are welcome.

Thanks

Click to expand...

For OS, I suggest FreeBSD (especially if you decide to go with multiple cores/rocessors as the filesystem in the latest version is multi-threaded) or linux. You'll ahve less overhead, and better stability and security that way.

Thanks! I have never used RAID, used some LVMs in linux before but never true RAID, so would 5 be the best level?

As for the OS I was probably going to base it off slackware as I use that for my webserver and desktops. However FreeBSD seems like the most stable OS out there, I would have to figure out how to use it before I built the server.

Also any recommendations on a motherboard? Not sure if I should shoot for a desktop board such as abit or asus, or a true server board with PCI-X on it?

You don't need PCI-X, PCI-Express is better, and you can get some nice PCI-Express RAID cards. level 5 is what I'd reccomend.

RAID info:
http://www.raidweb.com/whatis.html
http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/raid/levels/index.htm

i second the seagate suggestion. those hard drives will be getting worked so you'll want something with a good warranty and good reputation. also some kind of backup medium is a must, whether it be DVD, AIT, external hard disk, etc. if you're set to go the P4 route i recommend looking at intel's motherboards.

I would get a good quality Asus NF4 motherboard with a dualcore opteron. Use a PCI graphics card and use the PCIe slot for a PCIe RAID card. Then use either SATA or SAS for the RAID. I would suggest getting a SAS card as it will run both SATA and SAS drives thats what im useing right now an Adaptec 4805SAS with 3 150GB WD Raptor drives and i must say im very happy with the performance.

infinitevalence said:

I would get a good quality Asus NF4 motherboard with a dualcore opteron. Use a PCI graphics card and use the PCIe slot for a PCIe RAID card. Then use either SATA or SAS for the RAID. I would suggest getting a SAS card as it will run both SATA and SAS drives thats what im useing right now an Adaptec 4805SAS with 3 150GB WD Raptor drives and i must say im very happy with the performance.

Click to expand...

Running RAID? that does sound like a good plan though. however the dualcore might be overkill for a file server.

Ok how does this look:

Motherboard: Asus A8N5X $85.84
Processor: AMD Opteron 150 @ 2.4Ghz 1mb lvl2 cache $345.52 or AMD Opteron 165 Dual core @ 1.8Ghz 2mb lvl2 cache $325.00
Storage: 3x Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 160Gig @ SATA 3.0Gb/s $81.00 EA
Storage Controller Card: HighPoint RocketRAID 2320 PCI-E $249.99
Graphics: Any PCI video card $10-15
Power: OCZ PowerStream 520W @ 134.99
Memory: Corsair 1Gb PC3200 with ECC $112
Network: Onboard $0
OS: Slackware or FreeBSD

Subtotal:
1181.34 - with Opteron 150
1160.82 - with Opteron 165

ETA: I am not sure if he needs a disk drive of sorts that is why its not on the list, also same with a tape drive or somthing.

I suggest the dual core, it should help when multile users are accessing it at the same time.

Archer36 said:

As for the OS I was probably going to base it off slackware as I use that for my webserver and desktops. However FreeBSD seems like the most stable OS out there, I would have to figure out how to use it before I built the server.

Click to expand...

Slackware = bulletproof! Best os and the most stable linux os around... its actually one of the oldest surviving linux distros to date!

I used to be a huge slackware fan until i descoverd the joys of portage gentoo makes installation and maintence so easy its hard to suggest any other distro unless you really dont like CLI.

1 vote for SCSI.

The tech doesn't change much. it won't be outdated in 3 years, items are built for the server enviroment.....unlike those wonderful crappy SATA style connectors that like to pop off and cause drive problems.

The only problem with SCSI, is cost. But, in the server world, you get what you pay for.

You didn't mention how many users would be on the network, so I would say it's for a small buisness with maybe 20 users, you could get by on a dual-P3 1Ghz board. Not blazing fast, but when was the last time you needed HOLY CRAP SPEED for Exel and Quickbook files.

Heat is another big issue. SATA drives, like to get hot. Especially when multiple users are pulling files off em at the same time. Unless you have some decent cooling in the case, you could see problems in 1-2 years time. Good thing for waranties.


IF you have to go SATA, go with an Areca RAID card, and atleast 4 large drives. And get a card that will plan or their future, no matter which route you go. If you are going to use 3-4 drives, get an 6 or 8 port card. SCSI would be capable of alot more drives via 2 or 3 different channels, but again, cost is high.

And, if you can, PCI-X. Alot of motherboard companies are finding people complaining their $400 RAID card does not work in thier PCI-E slot. And hopefully, the company will write a new BIOS to support these cards. It's pretty much a crap shoot if ya ask me.

SCSI == bullet proof.

SMP is good, too, for when you get into having a lot of users on the box. But if you're just serving stuff for your house, you can get by with a single-processor, RAID5 (or non-RAID) system. I've got no problem at my house caching DNS, serving files and local mail and running other network utilities (NTP! ) on my 1.0GHz Athlon with 512MB RAM. Your mileage, of course, will vary.

But if you want something nice...get a DC Opteron, Serial ATA RAID5. And 2GB RAM. That way you're set for the next fifty years.

Hmm, I will have to look into SCSI I have used it a few times with a few old compaq prolient servers. Thanks!

ETA: Also where is a good place to buy SCSI gear? Newegg has some drives but they are $120 for one drive.

SCSI is going to be more expensive, but the payoff is increased speed and reliability.

Ok so if I was to go SCSI I found some Seagate Barracuda 181.6GB U160 7200RPM drives, now my SCSI knowledge is low is U160 backward compadible with a U320 card? Also that would mean that I would have to go with a PCI-X motherboard.

To me I dont see the reasoning behind SCSI for a office of 8-10 people as it looks to cost a lot more and the drives should not be working much more than the adverage desktop. However I am still open to suggestions as I really don't know where to look for SCSI equip.

Thanks

you do not need a dual-core, not for the price of the CPU. i'm using a 1.25ghz power mac G4 w/ 1 gb ram running os x tiger server for mac and windows file sharing. at least a dozen people use this server daily over the network and the cpu load rarely exceeds 50%.

for a backup solution, i would get them something they can grow into. backing up to DL DVDs might be sufficient at first, as they get more data a tape drive would be appropriate but you'd also want to future proof that solution as much as possible. the problem with that is a tape library that allows you to grow as backup sizes grow can be several thousand dollars and the tapes can run $50/each. you can use scsi160 devices on a scsi320 adaptor, i'm doing it at the moment.

raid is not an acceptable solution in place of a true backup...what good is raid if the file server is stolen or something physically happens to the machine?

Well I want to get them a server that is capable of doing more than just a file server and I also do not want him running on outdated hardware that way if he needs more power I can install a faster processor.

So it looks like I am going to go with 3x Seagate SATA 3.0Gb/s drives with the Areca ARC-1210 SATA RAID controller, possibly running RAID 5. Then probably have the computer do nightly backups over the network to a separte computer.

Sound good?

Sounds pretty hot

The only thing i have against SCSI is the shared buss... moving up to SAS gives you the same relibility, with the same SCSI commands but does not limit the number of drives you can have on a single channel. So you get an overall improvement in performance. Plus most of the RAID controlers have 8 ports on them giving you up to 2.4TB of 10k RPM storage.