First Build -- could really use 2nd opinion

[mathnerd]

I've been having trouble getting much/any feedback on other forums. (I realize it's not an exciting cutting edge gaming build.) But, I'm hoping someone here can give things a quick look-through for me.

I'm planning to build a simple home server, running Ubuntu linux, which will be used for backing up our other computers (cuttently just Windows XP home laptops) via SSH and providing network printing via CUPS. Fancier server functions may be added later as need/knowledge increase.

Also, I would like to leave open the option that in, say, a couple years, this box may be reincarnated as a budget/midrange Windows desktop. For this, I would like to be able to reuse as many of the original components as possible. For example, although I expect to replace the processor and memory and add a graphics card, it would be nice if I could keep the same motherboard, if this seems reasonable.

Although I've listed the prices below, I don't really have a budget per se. My (perhaps naive) plan is to choose from high quality brands and select the cheapest components which meet my above criteria and which promise to yield a very reliable and fairly quiet machine.

So, before I list the components I've selected so far, here are my primary questions:
(1) I had the hardest time selecting the motherboard/processor/memory combination, so what do folks think of those? I realize the mobo has features I have no current need for, but it was the cheapest one available on newegg with fsb and memory standard exceeding 800Mhz (for "future-proofing") and on board RAID support. Also, is this the right level of processor and amount of memory for my needs?
(2) Speaking of RAID, I can't decide what to do about this -- implement it later, implement RAID 1 now, buy 2 more disks and implement RAID 5 now or later, or what? Does anyone have experience with recovering from a failed disk and/or changing RAID configuration in linux? How easy or hard is this to do? I've no experience with RAID, but am willing to try it out. Our "irreplaceable" files will be burned to disk anyway.

Well, here's my shopping list so far. Oh, and by the way, I already have an old monitor, keyboard and mouse to use for the installation, and then remove.

CASE & PSU: ($166)
Antec Sonata Plus 550 ATX Mid Tower Case with 550W Power Supply
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16811129037

MOTHERBOARD: ($83)
ASUS P5N-EM HDMI Micro ATX Intel Motherboard
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16813131229

PROCESSOR: ($70)
Intel Pentium E2180 Allendale 2.0GHz Dual-Core Processor
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16819116052

MEMORY: ($50)
Kingston 2 x 1GB DDR2 800 SDRAM Dual Channel Kit
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16820134488

HARD DRIVE: ($87 ea)
2 X Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 500GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16822148136

OPTICAL DRIVE: ($30)
SAMSUNG 20X DVD±R DVD Burner IDE
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16827151161

TOTAL: $573 + tax

Well, if you have any suggestions on any of this, I'd greatly appreciate it.
Thanks.

 

[RadiclDreamer]

My only suggestion would be to spring for a C2D for a little more $ you can up the performance and life expectancy of your pc big time

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: mathnerd
I'm planning to build a simple home server, running Ubuntu linux, which will be used for backing up our other computers (cuttently just Windows XP home laptops) via SSH and providing network printing via CUPS. Fancier server functions may be added later as need/knowledge increase.

Simple file servers are limited in speed by the network card, and the hard drive - not so much the cpu. You can put together a P3 system and be just about as speedy as the latest dual core cpus.

Originally posted by: mathnerd
Also, I would like to leave open the option that in, say, a couple years, this box may be reincarnated as a budget/midrange Windows desktop. For this, I would like to be able to reuse as many of the original components as possible. For example, although I expect to replace the processor and memory and add a graphics card, it would be nice if I could keep the same motherboard, if this seems reasonable.

Define "budget/midrange".

The honest truth is, most home users do not exceed the processing power of a 2ghz single core Athlon64. If you want to run a power gaming machine, that's a different story. But the typical internet / email / itunes user does not need a powerful dual core cpu.

Originally posted by: mathnerd
(2) Speaking of RAID, I can't decide what to do about this -- implement it later, implement RAID 1 now, buy 2 more disks and implement RAID 5 now or later, or what? Does anyone have experience with recovering from a failed disk and/or changing RAID configuration in linux? How easy or hard is this to do? I've no experience with RAID, but am willing to try it out. Our "irreplaceable" files will be burned to disk anyway.

Do yourself a favor and don't bother. Only use raid if (1) you desperately need more speed out of the drives, or (2) you desperately need the server running at all times.

 

[mathnerd]

Thanks for the suggestion RadiclDreamer.

Hmm, perhaps you're right. It looks like this would require just another $50. On the other hand, to me that seems to push the processor into the "midrange" category, and I was thinking a simple home server like this wouldn't need more than a "just enough not to suck" processor. Though, to be honest (and don't laugh here) my current computer is a 3 year old Fujitsu laptop with a 1.6 Mhz Pentium M. So, any dual core processor running on (I hope) the 64 bit version of Ubuntu sounded like a screaming speed machine to me. I guess I'm a bit out of touch.

So, now that you have me thinking, I should probably plan to perform more of my everyday work tasks on the server and just leave the beloved old laptop for web surfing on the couch. So given this, the C2D is sounding like the way to go.

Thanks for the tip.

 

[mathnerd]

Ok, now cubby1223 has me thinking I overshot the processor to begin with. Maybe I should just average the two suggestions and stay where I started? Anyway, the debate is good for me to hear.

Yeah, I'm kinda leaning towards not implementing RAID at all. I'm certainly not going to be running some sort of website that I need to make a living off of or some other critical function. But, I do like the option of trying out RAID someday, just for fun if nothing else, so I'll probably still stick with a motherboard that has onboard RAID.

Oh, and as for "budget/midrange" I don't have a clear definition, but I meant something for average use. Since games are probably the most demanding thing an average user requires, I had in mind something that would do a good job of running games that are maybe a couple of years old, but not something that would run the latest games at top resolution and fps.

 

[cubby1223]

Even for games, unless you're running the most demanding of new games at high resolutions and high settings, the cpu is not the limitation, the video card is. I do some gaming on my own computer, it's just a 2.4ghz single core Athlon 64, 2gb ram, 512mb x1950 pro video card. The E2180 cpu you initially selected is a lot faster than what I have, and if paired with a GeForce 9600 or something, you've got one helluva gaming machine. It won't get you max fps in Crysis on a 24" 1920x1200 monitor, but it's more than satisfactory for most other games.

 

[mathnerd]

Well, you're sounding like the voice of reason here, cubby1223. Following the advice of some hardware guides I've read through, I had been focusing on the ratio performance/price as the practicality sweet spot (and so concluded, for example, that the $150-200 processors were best mainstream buy). But as you allude to, it's (used performance)/price which is the best measure of practicality. I think I should look back through my whole set-up with this mindset.

Now, keeping gaming as our measure, let me ask one more thing. If I gave this computer to my nephew with an E2180 cpu and GeForce 9600 graphics card two years from now, would it still be reasonable for most games, as you describe above? I just don't know how quickly game demands change these days.

 

[cubby1223]

On the other hand, it's not like we're having a discussion over a lot of money, the difference between the E2180 and a Core 2 Duo is not that big. Certainly not like 10 years ago when a mainstream computer cost $1,200, and a top of the line was $2,000.

I guess what I'd give for advice is, if you can easily afford a faster cpu, go for it. But if you decide against it, do not worry that you're risking the future.




Actually, if I were in your position, I'd buy the cheap Celeron now for a file server, and a few years down the road buy a Core 2 Duo, or quad core when reusing the system elsewhere. But then again I'm cheap. When as a server, you're using basic video functions, then when you switch it to a gaming machine later, you're buying a new video card anyways. So you can save another $40 buying a motherboard with fewer features associated with the video output:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16813186138

 

[mathnerd]

Ah yes, the good old days: In 1992 my wife and I spent well over $2000 on a 486, 33Mhz machine with a 145 MB hard drive. It booted to DOS by default, and we only loaded Windows (3.1 was it?) if we wanted to do something fancy, like use a spreadsheet. The original Duke Nukem and Commander Keen provided the entertainment.

As for the present purchase, the truth is that we can easily afford better than the list I originally posted, but it drives me absolutely nuts to buy more than I'm going to need (and it's so easy to be tempted by the next model up in computer hardware). So, I think I am going to follow something along the lines of your last suggestion. The real trick so far is finding a current motherboard that's well supported under Linux. :-(

Well, thanks for the food for thought.