need to build a server -- $1000 budget: can i do it?

[afong56]

hello to all rfd techies:

i want to set up a network with 8 computers
my goal is to have 400gb of hdd storage

the network will mostly be used to share files, and individual workstations will be doing tonnes of photoshopping.

is it possible to build a decent server for $1000 (hardware only, i have software)???

--if so, what would such a server contain/look like?


thanks in advance

[willy]

For file sharing, I don't see you will need any high-end CPU nor loads of memory. So I think the money should be spent on maximizing disk-I/O and network throughput.

Is the system downtime a critical issue ? Do you foresee any growth in size of the network ? Is it gonna to be rack-mount ?

Have your checked out the pre-builds from Dell/HP/IBM ?

For keep the budget < $1000, you can start from this ... http://configure.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=ca&CS=CABSDT1&l=en&oc=OCPEGE430SC_FEAT_FY0743C

With the C$80 P4 630 upgrade, it costs C$680. A Seagate 400GB HD will cost an extra C$250. You can also fit a Gigabit Ethernet NIC in.

[hp]

My advice is to pay for a good Power Supply Unit and a decent case with good airflow.

if the server is going to be close by, look for cooling solutions that's decent and quiet.

Look at the Dell SC430 series of servers and if you want to build something similar, that's a good starting point.

For CPU, I'd recommend the Intel Pentium D805 dual core, I think this should be more than sufficient for you use.

Just my $0.02

hp

[afong56]

Is the system downtime a critical issue ? Do you foresee any growth in size of the network ? Is it gonna to be rack-mount ?


thanks for the reply and the suggestions.

system downtime is critical. if possible, i'd like as bulletproof a setup as possible (given the budget constraints).

growth is possible, but not likely in the immediate future.

i don't think rack mount is in the plans.

any further hints/suggestions?

[MasZakrY]

if its just a fileserver, you dont need any fancy cpu or anything. Raid 1for redundancy (or raid 5 if you have the $) will be your friend for bulletproofing and having the speed you need for 8 simultanious accesses. As for hard drives, the more the merrier! Get 2 250's or 3 160gb's instead of a 400 for sure. If you already have some >1ghz computer lying around, just plop in a better psu and some hard drives. For example, a 250gb hard drive is only $100, so get 4 250gb hard drives in raid 1 for 500gb total and you have $600! left over for a very decent pc. Heck for that price/gb, I'd get another 2 hard drives and then each two networked computers could share one hard drive array. Just my 2c and experience.

[Daijoubu]

You really don't need a fast CPU but extra ram may help, especially if you're running under linux since unused memory are dynamicly allowed as disk buffer :)

So frequently accessed file can be pulled directly from your ram

[xwar]

I built my server using a Sempron processor .. runs quiet and cool!

[willy]

system downtime is critical. if possible, i'd like as bulletproof a setup as possible (given the budget constraints).
To minimize downtime as a result of HD problems, you might want to consider setting up RAID-1 array. To stay below C$1000 budget, Instead of running a single 400GB, you could do 2 x 300GB for around the same price. To save cost of buying a standalone RAID controller, you could choose a mobo with onboard RAID.

[danfromwaterloo]

hello to all rfd techies:

i want to set up a network with 8 computers
my goal is to have 400gb of hdd storage

the network will mostly be used to share files, and individual workstations will be doing tonnes of photoshopping.

is it possible to build a decent server for $1000 (hardware only, i have software)???

--if so, what would such a server contain/look like?


thanks in advance

Just as a point,

Last year (in fact if you do a search for it in this forum, you'll find traces of it), I built a heavy-ass server for something like $1400. Dual processors (Opteron 246), 8GB of memory, 2x 250GB SATAII RAID hdds, dvd burner, AND Windows Server 2003 x64 Enterprise Edition (LEGIT) AND Sql Server 2005 Standard (LEGIT).

If you're very shrewd about how you do things, you can very easily put together a system for $1000.

EDIT: My recommendation would be to grab a $300 job from Dell (Inspiron 1100) as a base for the system. Then, maybe toss in a RAID controller with two big HDDs...? If its just going to be a file server, CPU/Mobo/Memory is not the issue, but the File I/O.

Also, surprisingly, eBay is a great place to grab stuff cheap. I got 8gb of ECC 2700 memory for $200 (yeah, try getting even 1MB for that).

[afong56]

wow, thanks for all of the replies--i've got a lot to think about now.


dan--do you think that the same setup you built for $1400 last year (btw, i did see that thread), could be done for close to $1000 this year?

edit: wait, did dan already answer that question??? nvm (i think)

thanks again to all that replied. . .much appreciated.

[Aero]

don't forget the ups, well unless you already have that and its not in the 1k budget. Its the small things that matters, right. :cheesygri

[afong56]

don't forget the ups, well unless you already have that and its not in the 1k budget. Its the small things that matters, right. :cheesygri

lol, yeah, i factored that in already. . .it's not part of the $1000

[Silver Bullet]

Hey, this should do ...

CPU - should be fine, for sure fast enough for server work
Case - Quiet, maybe a little high end, but it has great air flow and lots of room to grow.
HD(s) - 320GB is the price break point (best deal for the $) and 320GB seems like enough. Great for running in RAID 1
RAM - Standard ram should be fine .. always add more later
MOBO - First, no fans to die, no extra noise, Daul GB Lans, Seperate RAID controller, can't really go wrong.
Video Card: CHANGE TO: Sapphire ATI Radeon X300SE 128MB DDR TV-Out PCI-Express Video (i couldn't add it in, but its about the same price). Again no fan to fail and it can always be updated later on if need be.
DVD/R - Could use generic CD-R but, DVD-R be better for backups etc.

I know people going rake on my case and mobo choices, but they seem well suited to what you need. LMK what you think.

http://img483.imageshack.us/img483/7388/system9xa.gif

Prices from Canada Computer, Infonec might do better, but meh up to you really.

[plausipo]

For a file server, I would definitely trade off performance for reliability. In my past experience, a majority of the headaches were from power and HD failure.
1) You might want to have a better server case that can provide for redundant power supplies, x2 is a start, x3 is better...and make sure that they are hot-swappable, then have them plug into a UPS that can at least provide for 1/2 hour emergency power.
2) HD should be hot-swappable too.
3) I/O definitely is of high priority, Giga-LAN is also worthwhile to consider.

Haven't been in the market for a while, I can only give you my 5 cents on principle. There are lots of good folks in this forum to give you harware pricing advises.

Lastly, if you're going for Linux, make sure those hardwares you're acquiring are compatible with it.
Document version control might be another software/operational issue that you wanted to look into if a group of people are working for the same project.

[hp]

I thought Dan was able to get the special bundle from AMD last year hence the great savings on the OS plus some hardware parts.

There is no way you can buy legit Windows 2003 Server OS these days (unless from some forum member here) and still get all that hardware for $1400.

The RAM alone would cost well over $700. (I think he is using 4 sticks of 2GB RAM and I think they were close to $200 per stick back then, and is still expensive today).

With regard, I think RAID 5 would be a better solution. It offers speed improvement in some cases, if you lose one hard disk, you can still recover your data.

RAID 1 is great, but you need 4 hard disks and you only get 1/2 of the capacity. so four 250GB hard drive would only give you 500GB of usable storage. Where as RAID 5, if you have three 250GB HD, you still get 500GB of usable storage.

Forget the Dimsion 1100 for a file server, the cooling isn't adaquet. I know cause I have four of them here at the office. You won't beable to put in more HD without a dell harddisk bracket. And you can only put in two HD max. There isn't enough room for you to put in a fan in the front of the case to cool the hard disks.

You defintely need a mid size tower with at least a front and rear fan to circulate air.

SC430 might be a better choice, it's unfortunate that dell has disable the support of regular (cheaper) non ECC memory.

I think for you I recommend

CPU: Intel Pentium D805 (Dual core)
Mobo: Intel D945 Mobo with RAID and onboard video
RAM: 2x1GB DDR2 RAM (name brand that is realiable, say Kingston, OCZ)
HD: 3x250GB Seagate SATA2 HD, setup in RAID 5 so you have 500GB of usable space

DVD: Any DVD burner

Budget around $200 for a good case with a good PSU. (Very critical)

It's close to a $1000 but it will get the job done.

Oh, you should also look to spend about $100 on a good UPS. (Or wait till Dell has a sale again and pickup the APC 750VA UPS that was on sale for $50)

If you have an old PCI card, then throw that in and save the memory that would be used for Video for other stuff.

If power consumption is a concern, you can switch to a Mobile chip such as Pentium M or AMD Turion, Mobile Sempron.

hp

[TenzoR]

if you are looking for an AMD64 3000+ .... dum dee dum ;)

[Daijoubu]

You surely don't need an 3D accelerator in a server...
Not to mention it heats up more and draw more current :|

Just stick any PCI video card laying around or buy an used one for 5-10 bucks
Heck, some motherboard even boot without a graphic card
If you're going for the linux route, you can manage via CLI (SSH)
No graphical interface means more free ram :)

[deep]

Buying a Windows Server OS will kill your budget. If you know anyone who can install SAMBA, or some other easy Linux variant for you (or read for a couple of hours and do it yourself) I would go that way.

If you REALLY just need file serving, you want something bulletproof, and you don't want to spend any time setting it up or configuring it, consider the Terastation line - the 640GB version is now just over $800. I've installed a couple of these for small businesses, and one for a home user, and they really are a snap. The first one I did has been running for a couple of years now without a restart. You can also add external USB drives for additional storage or automated backup, it acts as a print server, and it has decent management tools, such as sending you backup/status emails, etc.

[danfromwaterloo]

IF having a legit version of the software is required, the only way you're getting a legit version of any Windows Server version is if you buy that AMD/Microsoft Server bundle (actually, I did...I too am building a file server/mail server for my workplace for less that $1000).

I'll tell you what I'm doing, and you can do something similar if you wish:

I bought the bundle. That gives me the mobo and CPU and legit OS. Next, I'm going to buy 2x250GB hard drives and put them in a RAID array (RAID-1 I believe - fully redundant? I can never keep the 0/1/5 numbers straight).
I'll grab a case from TD, and I'll use a left over 1GB ECC Ram stick that I have here to be the memory. Total? Probably just under $1000.

Don't discount eBay as a good source for things. You are taking a risk, but I've found that the return on investment is a good one.

[danfromwaterloo]

You surely don't need an 3D accelerator in a server...
Not to mention it heats up more and draw more current :|

Just stick any PCI video card laying around or buy an used one for 5-10 bucks
Heck, some motherboard even boot without a graphic card
If you're going for the linux route, you can manage via CLI (SSH)
No graphical interface means more free ram :)

In fact, I don't know of a mobo that will boot without a video card nowadays. They used to a long time ago. Not any more.

[plausipo]

In fact, I don't know of a mobo that will boot without a video card nowadays
That's a trick comment :) ...most mobo comes with a display (hardware) device :lol: but let's not hijack the thread...focus on how we can make a sub-1K server as there are lots of positive input here...I myself is getting ticked in this without needing to build one

[Sash[DSL]]

Why isn't anyone recommending SCSI raid? :confused: An entry level u160 SCSI RAID controller is under $50 these days, a couple 74 10k rpm drives 5-6 milisecond actual access times shouldn't cost more than a few hundred combined.

[Daijoubu]

SCSI drives are more expensive, running a couple of cheaper SATA in RAID should be better bang for the buck

[afong56]

just to update:

we went ahead and built a server using mostly the config suggested by silver bullet, but went with 1tb of hdd space (4x250 wd2500, raid 1).

we kept it at 1gb ram, but are ready to upgrade to more if necessary.
we went with a thermaltake case instead of antec

the extra drives put us over $1100


thanks again to all who replied--your input was most appreciated

[Aero]

just to update:

we went ahead and built a server using mostly the config suggested by silver bullet, but went with 1tb of hdd space (4x250 wd2500, raid 1).

we kept it at 1gb ram, but are ready to upgrade to more if necessary.
we went with a thermaltake case instead of antec

the extra drives put us over $1100


thanks again to all who replied--your input was most appreciated


I'm really confuse about raid 0 and 1 lol. But isnt raid 1 mirroring raid? So it should only be 500gb ??? I think raid 0 is stipping, it should be raid 0, right? Just correct me if Im worng.

[Gee]

I didn't think this was such a big issue.

http://www.acnc.com/04_01_00.html

Personally, I think RAID 0 (Striping) is a waste of time. It is good if you need raw speed. But on an 8 user network, the bottleneck will not be I/O, it will be ethernet. Especially with 8 users transfering large Photoshop files.

RAID 1 is just a waste of disk space. You loose half of your total storage.

RAID 5 is the best, but not really feasible on motherboards that don't don't support full RAID

[smoothsailor]

If you have the choice, which is preferred. Rack mount Server or Tower Server.

[MasZakrY]

If you have the choice, which is preferred. Rack mount Server or Tower Server.
I'd prefer a steel 4U rack with good cooling. Thats just me.

[smoothsailor]

There must be a website somewhere that discusses the pros and cons of each ????

[sandy99]

With only 8 workstations there is no need for seperate a file server.

[cwb27]

I definitly second the recommendation to use SAMBA if all you're going to be doing is creating shares. It's free and with all the GUI based config now and it's unbelieably simple to setup.

And yes, U160 SCSI is VERY cheap to acquire now. SATA is nice, but SCSI will still outperform it if setup up properly.

[supernerd]

I'm really confuse about raid 0 and 1 lol. But isnt raid 1 mirroring raid? So it should only be 500gb ??? I think raid 0 is stipping, it should be raid 0, right? Just correct me if Im worng.

Yes raid 1 is mirroring. raid 0 is striping. 4 x 250 raid 1 = 500. 4 x 250 raid 0 = 1000.

[supernerd]

I definitly second the recommendation to use SAMBA if all you're going to be doing is creating shares. It's free and with all the GUI based config now and it's unbelieably simple to setup.

And yes, U160 SCSI is VERY cheap to acquire now. SATA is nice, but SCSI will still outperform it if setup up properly.

disk performance is important. But for a file server, the network is an important factor. If the OP stays on fast ethernet, the network will easily be the problem, and depending on the type of workload, the network will still be an important performance factor after upgrading to gigabit ethernet.

[cwb27]

disk performance is important. But for a file server, the network is an important factor. If the OP stays on fast ethernet, the network will easily be the problem, and depending on the type of workload, the network will still be an important performance factor after upgrading to gigabit ethernet.


Definitly agree. The OP needs a 'happy medium' of disk performance and network throughput.

An idea could be 6 SCSI (or SATA) drives in RAID 5 (downside is it's expensive to purchase a RAID 5 controller, on the upside is speed and fault tolerance).

NIC could possibly be Gigabit (all users would need to have a Gigabit NIC though).

You're also going to want a decent processor (possibly a 2.5 GHz Celeron even) and a decent amount of RAM (512mb will probably do it for you if you're running Linux).

In the end, it all comes down to what you want to do vs. how much money you have.

[Sewert]

Sun Fire X2100 Server:
This two-way x64 server is the fastest single-socket server available, and it's the most cost-effective solution in its class. The Sun Fire X2100 server is easy to scale, easy on the budget, and gives you a choice of operating systems - Solaris OS, Linux, and Windows.

* One dual- or single-core AMD Opteron 100 Series processor
* Up to 4 GB of memory
* Up to 2 SATA disk drives
* 1U high form factor

See more:
Sun Fire X2100 Server (http://ca.sun.com/en/catalog/?n-state=http://catalog.sun.com/productinfo.xml?site%3dCANENCA%26catalogue%3dFC%26 segment%3dFC_R%26item%3dFC_SC_CAT%26group%3d2010%2 6fid%3d5154%26id%3d13158~~~G!00B5261F5C13!WBPkexcn EpBE33lB~standard~ws-nocache~~@http://syndicator.sun-catalogue.com/cacanen/canadaencontext)

[supernerd]

Definitly agree. The OP needs a 'happy medium' of disk performance and network throughput.

An idea could be 6 SCSI (or SATA) drives in RAID 5 (downside is it's expensive to purchase a RAID 5 controller, on the upside is speed and fault tolerance).

6 scsi (or sata) drives is a "happy medium"? That'll require one or two controller cards and a case with 6 drive bays, and read throughput that is much higher than gigabit throughput. It should be noted that it is a common misconception that RAID 5 is fast... it sucks for writes, especially small writes. If you update less than one block of data, you need to read, modify, write both the data block and parity block (along with actually computing parity).


NIC could possibly be Gigabit (all users would need to have a Gigabit NIC though).

Once you spend enough money for reliability (i.e. mirrored drives), improving your network will have the most impact on overall performance. gigabit ethernet cards shouldnt be too expensive (its starting to be pretty standard on my systems now), but a 8-port gigabit switch usually costs at least $200.

[cwb27]

6 scsi (or sata) drives is a "happy medium"? That'll require one or two controller cards and a case with 6 drive bays, and read throughput that is much higher than gigabit throughput. It should be noted that it is a common misconception that RAID 5 is fast... it sucks for writes, especially small writes. If you update less than one block of data, you need to read, modify, write both the data block and parity block (along with actually computing parity).

Once you spend enough money for reliability (i.e. mirrored drives), improving your network will have the most impact on overall performance. gigabit ethernet cards shouldnt be too expensive (its starting to be pretty standard on my systems now), but a 8-port gigabit switch usually costs at least $200.


You don't need two controller cards for 6 drives, just a good Raid card such as an IBM U160 ServRaid which can be had for pretty cheap on ebay and can support up to 25 drives. I know I said RAID 5 is fast, but speed was not my focus, I know how RAID 5 can be affected with small writes.

RAID 5 (with a hot spare) will give you fault tolerance and fault recovery on the fly, if the OPs data is of greater importance RAID 5 is one of the better, but slightly more expensive, alternatives to a simple RAID 1 setup.

[coolspot]

hello to all rfd techies:

i want to set up a network with 8 computers
my goal is to have 400gb of hdd storage



Maybe you should get a NAS (Network Attached Storage) instead ... IOMEGA and other companies have cheap NASes.