Building a WHS server - BEST CPU to choose?

[BD2003]

And nowadays, you can hardly buy anything slower than a conroe other than an atom. If you're gonna build your own whs, might as well spend the little bit extra to make it last.

 

[mmx]

Thanks to everyone.

In the end, I used an Dell 9200 system - which is very silent ++++
Core 2 6300 (1.86ghz)
4 gig Ram
2x 1.5gig HD WD
Very overkill, but I'm going to adding add-ins and will see how much it stresses the system. Better be strong than need to upgrade later.

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: mmx
In the end,

I'll be using the e6300 cpu
Dell MB WITH 4 GIG RAM
2X 1.5GIG HD WD- new one came out connected to the MB
DVD/Rw
Gigabeat ethernet from MB.

This should be a pretty powerful WHS. Right? How to best use the systm and energy savings?

I think some are wondering why you need a "powerful" WHS. You need HD space, you need a good network connection. Conroe? 4gb ram? Probably overkill.

RAM is cheap and helps with file transfer performance due to more available RAM for caching. A Conroe is a good fit if you ever decide to do anything else with your WHS box, and it's also a good idea if you ever plan on upgrading to the Server 2008-based WHS v2 (which I think just about everyone here is drooling for).

Ram on the server? I'm assuming you're talking about transfers to the server? I would have assumed it's the computer doing the transferring that matters more.

And when's 2008 based WHS coming? I'm just getting used to 2003 based WHS. So far it's good, though i'd like FULL remote access back office style. The console interface is okay. I need to learn the tricks though.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Ram on the server? I'm assuming you're talking about transfers to the server? I would have assumed it's the computer doing the transferring that matters more.

Usually these boxes are built with large but low-performing (read: cooler running) hard drives, so drive performance can be a bottleneck. RAM directly helps with writes by giving the server more room to cache things in before having to slow down the transfer to whatever the disk can do, and in certain cases it helps with reads too if what's being read is already cached (and hence you don't need to go hit a disk).

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: mmx
In the end,

I'll be using the e6300 cpu
Dell MB WITH 4 GIG RAM
2X 1.5GIG HD WD- new one came out connected to the MB
DVD/Rw
Gigabeat ethernet from MB.

This should be a pretty powerful WHS. Right? How to best use the systm and energy savings?

I think some are wondering why you need a "powerful" WHS. You need HD space, you need a good network connection. Conroe? 4gb ram? Probably overkill.

RAM is cheap and helps with file transfer performance due to more available RAM for caching. A Conroe is a good fit if you ever decide to do anything else with your WHS box, and it's also a good idea if you ever plan on upgrading to the Server 2008-based WHS v2 (which I think just about everyone here is drooling for).

Ram on the server? I'm assuming you're talking about transfers to the server? I would have assumed it's the computer doing the transferring that matters more.

And when's 2008 based WHS coming? I'm just getting used to 2003 based WHS. So far it's good, though i'd like FULL remote access back office style. The console interface is okay. I need to learn the tricks though.

The 2008 based WHS should be coming next year.

But what remote access is it missing? You can remote login right to the windows server desktop and run whatever you want, from wherever you want. I even do it from my iphone on occasion. They recommend sticking with just the console, but you dont have to. Hell, you can even login as administrator, and run the WHS console as an app within the RDP session if you so desire.