File Server(s) for Work

aegan · Post by **aegan** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 8:06 pm

I work for a small trading company in Hong Kong. The IT setup here is pretty catastrophic - just computers hooked up to a router/gateway box. So what people do is they simply enable file sharing in windows xp and pass around files that way.

With 17 computers (and possibly more), this is becoming a network problem as the computers are always searching for shared folders on the network.

So now I am in charge of building a computer for the sole purpose of serving files to 17 users. Preferably with somewhat low power consumption, and must withstand lots of reads/writes.

The only requirement is that this machine must run on windows, because they don't like things they can't understand (think typical home users that only use IE, OE and AIM/MSN). In terms of hardware, they also don't like AMD chips so Semprons are out too. I'm pretty much left with Intel and Windows. I also thought about using NAS (which seems to be the "in" thing recently), but they would rather have a computer instead.

So I would like to gather some opinions for both hardware and implementation -

- since xp has a connection limit (capped at 10 methinks), should i build one computer with win2k3, or multiple computers with xp? the advantage of the latter is that it will ease the load on the computers, since there will be lots of reads/writes coming from the users.

- i am thinking of using a light c2d with the 945 chipset (multiple xp boxes), or a higher grade c2d/quad with 965/975 (win2k3), and obviously with raid arrays. any other cpu/chipset combinations I should try?

thanks in advance,
- bernard

angelkiller · Post by **angelkiller** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 8:26 pm

I don't know much of fileserving, but from what I've heard, you don't need much processing power. (Even for 17 users all hammering the system) I'm thinkin a Cedar Mill Celeron D. (I know you can't buy newegg, I just wanted you to see.) Performance looks like it's based on HDD speed and network connections. I'd get an 80GB drive for OS/other sutff. As for storage drives, get three of something in Raid. And I think any ol' 945 chipset will suffice.

NOTE: You never said how much storage you needed

(Important for recommending drives)

RAID Notes
1. GET A HARDWARE RAID CARD!!! (Performance is superior)
2. I probably am wrong here, but get Raid 5 if you have alot of reads. If you have alot of writes go for Raid 10.

PPGMD · Post by **PPGMD** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:59 pm

angelkiller wrote:RAID Notes
1. GET A HARDWARE RAID CARD!!! (Performance is superior)
2. I probably am wrong here, but get Raid 5 if you have alot of reads. If you have alot of writes go for Raid 10.

Hardware RAID is the way to go for any corporate IT servers.

As far as what RAID to go for, I say RAID 5 for most every environment because it has the lowest per a gigabyte cost. With 5 drives you only lose 20% of your capacity vs 50% with most other redundant RAID sets.

The only time where I suggest other RAID sets are when the number of drives is limited, have budget issues, or you have particular performance requirements.

Also I do suggest a NAS, I have been using the Thecus 5200Bs, they aren't silent (they have a 2400 RPM 92mm fan, and a god knows how fast 20-40mm fan in the PSU). But I currently have 4 of them deployed for myself and my business, they are rock solid, very configurable (over a web interface) and support 5 drive RAID 5 arrays up to 3TB.

Anyways specs aren't a huge deal with a file server, just need to be a solidly built system with a gigabit ethernet card. If this is the companies first server Small Business Server 2003 might be something to consider, much easier to administrate then a normal Windows 2003 box with the Server Management Console.

aegan · Post by **aegan** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:21 pm

honestly, the root of the problem lies in that there was never any sort of structure to begin with - they weren't very big on IT, didn't have anyone that know anything, and didn't consider structure to be important. so what they ended up with is basically a very large "home" network with people sharing folders all over the place. it will still be the same with this file server in place, just that the underlying structure will be somewhat better.

after talking to them about it, it would seem like i am building 1-2 computers for this. i will probably end up with something like this...

Celeron D as suggested
1gb ram (enough? too much?)
945 chipset board with gigabit nic
80gb hdd for OS/apps
74gb raptor x4 in raid 5 (222gb raid array)
hardward sata raid card *recommendation needed*
optical drive
~400w power supply (probably Antec TruePower Trio 430)
harddrive-friendly case (centurion 5?)

what about those intel boards that support raid? I thought the ICH6 chipset and above all supported Intel Matrix Raid - which supports 0, 1, and 5...

thanks for all the comments =)
- bernard

Plissken · Post by **Plissken** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:18 am

Why the Raptors? You are building a fileserver for 17 users, not a gaming machine... the bottleneck is the ethernet. Get some big, solid drives for your RAID 5, and a good RAID hardware card. Forget about chipset RAID.
You haven't mentioned budget, or GB required.

aegan · Post by **aegan** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:00 am

budget is not really a problem...still calculating the GB required, though. i am thinking of having 3-4 160 or 250gb drives in RAID 5, with a decent raid controller card - though i've never purchased one of those, so i'm not sure what brands are good.

- bernard

sjoukew · Post by **sjoukew** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 3:46 am

Tomshardware is testing these kind of cards for several years now. http://www.tomshardware.com/storage/index.html looks like a good starting point for storage.
One article about raidcontrollers.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/12/13/ ... b-servers/

snq · Post by **snq** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:11 am

What do you mean with "xp has a connection limit (capped at 10 methinks)"? The limit that was introduced with SP2 or is there actually a specific limit for the shares?

If you meant the first, it won't be an issue. There is no limit for the amount of connections, the only limit of 10 that exists is the amount of pending connections, meaning connections waiting to be established. And you'd probably need 100s if not 1000s of PCs to be able to get that much pending connections on a LAN. So once the connection is established (which shouldnt take more than a couple of millisecs) you can have as many connections as you like. Besides this pending limit can quite easily be changed

And I'm pretty sure that 2k3 server SP1 and newer have the same limit.
So I think you can use XP if you prefer that over 2k3, at least for this it won't be a problem.

angelkiller · Post by **angelkiller** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:17 am

I've heard 3Ware RAID cards are pretty good.

As for a case, I think anything with 4 HDD bays will work. P180? P150? Solo? Centurion? And you don't much power. ~350 Watts will suffice.

pelago · Post by **pelago** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:27 am

For anything more than a handful of users, definitely go with Windows Server 2003, not XP.

PPGMD · Post by **PPGMD** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:02 am

I've had good luck with 3ware raid cards, get a PCI-E based one like the 9590 or the 9650, both of those will likely set you back about $700.

For hard drives I would go with 5 250GB drives, either Western Digital SE16 or a Seagate 7200.10.

I would also go for a full Pentium and not a Celeron, and I would put 2GB of RAM, and would run Windows 2003, you can get a file server to work on Windows XP, but you will have many more options for management and controlling the data access if they wish to have it with 2003.

Also Windows XP does have a user limit, it's 5-10 concurrent users to a network share, while Windows 2003 has no hard limit, just your available CALs. With 17 users I would probably get 15-20 CALs. Most copies of Windows 2003 comes with 5 CALs.

Case wish you are going to need something that will comfortably hold 5 drives, a DVD-ROM and a floppy drive. It will also need to last 5-10 years easily. So I would avoid any of the plastic composite cases like the P180, after only 2 years of light use my P180 already has issues.

The Thermaltake Armor series wouldn't be that bad of a choice. The V-2000 and V-2100 from Lian Li fit a huge amount of drives. Those are about the only non-rack mount cases that I can think of that can fit a whole 5 drive RAID 5 array and a floppy drive.

PSU wise you need 450-500 watts of power to have a bit of overhead. You are powering an entire normal system plus 4 more hard drives, and a RAID card which is a mini-computer by itself. You are also going to need some power overhead because businesses don't always keep their computer rooms as cold as they should.