Cheapest low-power system for encrypted NAS?

MoJo · Post by **MoJo** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:49 am

I want to upgrade my NAS to being encrypted.

Currently I use a Via EPIA with C7 CPU for it, but performance is rubbish even without encryption. Despite having gigabit LAN network file transfer performance is limited to around 20MB/sec, where as with faster machines I get 60-70MB/sec. Encryption performance is less than 20MB/sec with TrueCrypt, compared to over 100MB/sec on a single core Athlon 64 4200+.

So, I need more power, but want to keep power consumption low as the NAS is on all the time, usually just running uTorrent. When serving files, high performance is required. Dual core would be ideal.

I'm looking at Athlon 64 x2 systems, but AM2 is still quite expensive. 939/754 does not support DDR2 which offsets savings against extra expense for RAM (will probably run Windows Server 2008 if I can spare a license, or maybe just XP Pro but 1GB is probably the minimum). Single core would probably be okay if it's fast enough (DDR2 helps).

There are some really cheap dual core laptop CPUs on eBay, unfortunately no affordable desktop boards...

Any recommendations would be most welcome!

QuietOC · Post by **QuietOC** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 11:45 am

You should be looking for an undervolted "G2" stepping Athlon X2.

A BE-2400 or 4850e are probably the best possibilities, but any newer "Brisbane" should be fine.

jessekopelman · Post by **jessekopelman** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 12:31 pm

MoJo wrote:I'm looking at Athlon 64 x2 systems, but AM2 is still quite expensive.

What kind of prices are you seeing? In the US, you can get a AM2 (even AM2+) board for $50. Meanwhile, even the weakest Sempron will massively outperform a C7 and only costs $25 (LE-1100, only 45W TDP by the way). Even a Athlon X2 BE-2400 can be had for $40, which is potentially more than twice the performance than the LE-1100 for less than twice the price and still 45W TDP.

MoJo · Post by **MoJo** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 3:30 pm

Thanks QuietOC, I'll look out for those ones.

jessekopelman: The cheapest AM2 boards are about Â£30 ($60-70), ditto for an X2 4200 to go with it. I keep an eye on eBay but prices on there are stupid - people pay more than the damn things cost new

I'd love an X2 BE-2400 but they are about Â£60-65 ($140-150?) which seems incredible if you are only paying about Â£22.

There are some cheapish lower power CPUs on eBuyer but nothing dual core. I was expecting to see some really cheap bundles with older CPUs but they seem to be retaining their value.

You are right about the Sempron trashing the C7 though. I knew it wasn't a big performer but I was in a for a shock. The EPIA boards are absolute rubbish - rubbish CPU, rubbish chipset, rubbish features (half of which have no support anyway). I should have got a Sempron to start with...

QuietOC · Post by **QuietOC** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 5:36 pm

MoJo wrote:You are right about the Sempron trashing the C7 though. I knew it wasn't a big performer but I was in a for a shock. The EPIA boards are absolute rubbish - rubbish CPU, rubbish chipset, rubbish features (half of which have no support anyway). I should have got a Sempron to start with...

Yes, even S754 Semprons are quite decent performers, but DDR2 is so cheap. Any cheap AM2 chip will be able to be decently undervolted. My X2 4400+ is pretty good. Any cheap Geforce 61x0/70x0 motherboard would probably be fine, maybe even a VIA K8M800 motherboard. I've gotten several open box $40 motherboards that have been fine. I really like my new $67 780G board though.

IsaacKuo · Post by **IsaacKuo** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 6:49 am

I'm wondering--for this particular application, would dual core actually make a difference? I don't know how inefficient uTorrent is, but I'd imagine it wouldn't consume much CPU. That leaves the main problem which is file encryption/decryption. I don't know how TrueCrypt works, but I'd guess that you'd only use multiple cores if you were simultaneously accessing multiple files. Is that right?

If TrueCrypt can utilize multiple cores even when accessing only one file at a time, then dual core would be an incredible performance boost. If not, then I'm skeptical whether dual core would be worth it.

Post by **CA_Steve** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 7:13 am

Truecrypt 6 can utilize multi-core processors.

"Parallelized encryption/decryption on multi-core processors (or multi-processor systems). Increase in encryption/decryption speed is directly proportional to the number of cores and/or processors.

"For example, if your computer has a quad-core processor, encryption and decryption will be four times faster than on a single-core processor with equivalent specifications (likewise, it will be twice faster on dual-core processors, etc.)"

MoJo · Post by **MoJo** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:19 am

Looks like I'll just have to bide my time and look for a bargain I suppose... I think dual core is the way to go though. It would also be handy for the occasional brute force or dictionary attacks I need to run (don't ask).

TrueCrypt scales really well with multiple CPUs, although even a fairly low end one can out-perform a HDD. It used to be a choice between performance and low power, but these days you can have your cake and eat it.

loimlo · Post by **loimlo** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:07 am

IsaacKuo wrote:I'm wondering--for this particular application, would dual core actually make a difference? I don't know how inefficient uTorrent is, but I'd imagine it wouldn't consume much CPU. That leaves the main problem which is file encryption/decryption. I don't know how TrueCrypt works, but I'd guess that you'd only use multiple cores if you were simultaneously accessing multiple files. Is that right?

If TrueCrypt can utilize multiple cores even when accessing only one file at a time, then dual core would be an incredible performance boost. If not, then I'm skeptical whether dual core would be worth it.

I am running AM2 Athlon64 3000+ for my eMule/uTorrent/ShareEX2 usage, which is very low-end by today's standard. Dual's speed doesn't matter under your situation, but 45W dual costs so little nowadays that I would get it anyway.

MoJo · Post by **MoJo** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 1:51 pm

Ah, a fellow Share user! I run it from time to time but crappy UK broadband holds me back a lot.

I'm thinking about using this box as a media centre too. It would be powerful enough, especially with a cheap ATI card in it for hardware accelerated decoding. Could run Vista Ultimate...

loimlo · Post by **loimlo** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:15 am

It looks like AMD 780G board is your best bet.

MoJo · Post by **MoJo** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 1:47 pm

A quick question: will an X2 3600+ (Brisbane) be enough to decode H.264 and VP1 on a Gigabyte GA-MA74GM-S2? It looks like it might be a bit borderline, so I'll have to go for a more expensive 4850e...

Oh, and in the middle there is 3800 and 4200... Cheaper and probably undervoltable to sub 4850e levels, no?

jessekopelman · Post by **jessekopelman** » Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:33 am

MoJo wrote:A quick question: will an X2 3600+ (Brisbane) be enough to decode H.264 and VP1 on a Gigabyte GA-MA74GM-S2? It looks like it might be a bit borderline, so I'll have to go for a more expensive 4850e...

Oh, and in the middle there is 3800 and 4200... Cheaper and probably undervoltable to sub 4850e levels, no?

I don't think the 740G offers acceleration for those video codecs. It seems like you would be better off moving up to a 780G-based board and sticking with the 3600+. 3600+ combined with 780G should handle any kind of video you thro at it.

MoJo · Post by **MoJo** » Sat Sep 20, 2008 9:17 am

Thanks jessekopelman, I think that's what I might do. It's worth an extra tenner to get the 780g, and power consumption seems to be on a par with the 740g.

I did some tests and my socket 939 4200+ X2 can play 1080p videos at around 50-60% CPU with CoreAVC. In comparison the Quicktime codec stutters really badly, but most Quicktime HD videos (including Apple trailers) are just raw MP4 files and can be renamed to use CoreAVC.

Cheapest low-power system for encrypted NAS?

Cheapest low-power system for encrypted NAS?

Re: Cheapest low-power system for encrypted NAS?