Does the CPU in a RAID 5 File server matter alot when it comes to storage performance?

[Qianglong]

I am in the process of completing the fileserver which consists of the following components:

4 X 250GB Seagate 7200.10 16mb cache
Areca 1120 Raid 5 contoller

CPU : XP 2200+
MOBO : Tyan Socket A MP Mobo
RAM: 768MB DDR PC2100 RAM

Does the CPU in this server matter? The RAID Controller will be connected to a PCI-X Slot to maximize performance. There will be about 3~4 users using this server.

The Networking will be GBE with a 3Com Server NIC plugged into one of the PCI-X Slots. So the bandwitdth bottleneck problem is solved.

The mobo is a Tyan Athlon MP Motherboard that has dual Socket A. The primary use for the server is the storage and moving of large movie files and also digital photos.

I may also install applications on to the drive but that is not important.

 

[ColemontHD]

Depends on what the server will be used for. If it is just for a file server then yes/no. Mostly no if it is going to be small transfers. I would pricewatch a faster chip. Is it a socket 754 or 939?

 

[SuperNaruto]

Yes / No
Yes - Software RAID - non LSI / Areca types - your CPU will calculate parity, when 1 drive fails, retriving data will drag your CPU performance down

No - Hardware RAID - LSI / Areca types - your CPU will not calculate parity, everything is offloaded to the hardware controller

 

[RaiderJ]

I have a PIII 550Mhz running my RAID5 PCI controller. I notice my read/write/network speeds aren't the greatest. Switching the setup to an Athlon 3200+ in a couple weeks. Hopefully it should go faster!

I think overall I/O performance is more dependent on bus speed than CPU speed. Your PCI-X connection should be fine, you probably won't see any/much improvement by going to a faster system.

 

[Madwand1]

What's the expected load / usage pattern? Heavy + concurrent?

What's the networking? Is it GbE? Which chipset? PCI? Bus shared with any significant devices?

Without knowing much of the details on the MB, etc., I'd think that the network (+ file transfer protocols, etc.) would be the bottleneck for straight-ahead large file transfer to fast destinations. However, with GbE, the destination HDs would likely become bottlenecks first.

Net, there's a good chance that the CPU wouldn't be the bottleneck IMO. However, theory < actual tests & measurements.

 

[Rubycon]

There's a lot of factors. Often using an older generation of HBA (Enterprise/Elite1600) on brand new chipsets can lead to issues when the HBA advanced features like write back are enabled.

Some HBA's just refuse to work correctly whether it's BOOT ROM resource collisions, PCI/PCI-X/PCI-E timings, etc. There's a lot of folks on the 2cpu.com forums that "play" with this stuff all the time and could tell you what works and what doesn't and what works half ass. 😛

 

[Qianglong]

Originally posted by: Madwand1
What's the expected load / usage pattern? Heavy + concurrent?

What's the networking? Is it GbE? Which chipset? PCI? Bus shared with any significant devices?

Without knowing much of the details on the MB, etc., I'd think that the network (+ file transfer protocols, etc.) would be the bottleneck for straight-ahead large file transfer to fast destinations. However, with GbE, the destination HDs would likely become bottlenecks first.

Net, there's a good chance that the CPU wouldn't be the bottleneck IMO. However, theory < actual tests & measurements.

The Networking will be GBE with a 3Com Server NIC plugged into one of the PCI-X Slots. So the bandwitdth bottleneck problem is solved.

The mobo is a Tyan Athlon MP Motherboard that has dual Socket A. The primary use for the server is the storage and moving of large movie files and also digital photos.

I may also install applications on to the drive but that is not important.

 

[Homerboy]

how many posts you need on this?

I'll ask again: whats the file server for? Home? work? play?

and I will repsond the same:

OP what is this file server for? If its for home use, who cares about CPU speed, you care about availability and protection of your data... thats what RAID5 is for.
I personally run a file server at home off a AMD 1600+, 512RAM and a nice, large RAID5 setup (hardware card). Previous to that it was a PIII 1ghz. CPU speed doesn't matter a lick for such applications.

 

[wlee]

I looks like you've got everything you need already. *ASS*uming that you're going to be using a Server OS Like Win2k3, additional ram ( file caching ) would help more than a faster CPU.