Large scale file server specs?

[Jeff7181]

I have a guy who owns a cyber cafe with about 40 computers... he wants to use a central file server to host about 300 DVD quality divx movies for each client to be able to play on demand. What type of hardware would be needed to host this large amount of data, and what type of network would be required to meet the bandwidth demands of streaming divx movies?

 

[Haden]

100mbit network with 1gbit uplink to server should be enough,
for server I would recommed 512MB ram, something like 1800+/P4 2.0, higher quality mobo,
SCSI disks (thought if tight on budget IDE/SATA will be ok),
RAID5 would be nice (if you can afford it) but don't use RAID0.

I'll list my data server specs (used primarily for video/music hosting, ~100 clients):
AMD 2200+
Asus A7V600
512MB
Acorp INI-A100U2W SCSI,
3C940 onboard nic,
5xDPSS-336950M SCSI disks (36GB),
1xDDYS-T18350 (system),
1xMAXTOR 6L060J3,
1xMaxtor 4G120J6,
1xST3120026AS

 

[Jeff7181]

That's enough to stream divx video to 40 users???

 

[Haden]

Yes, with "stream" you mean just share divx files not encode dvd vobs I assume.
Encoded mpeg4 movies have ~1000-2000kbps bitrate, read operations are usually predicted and cached + they don't require much seeking...

 

[Abzstrak]

yea, you should be able to get by with IDE disks too, I too would suggest raid 5... a hardware raid 5 controller would be good/

 

[SaigonK]

RAID-5 is slow, why woudl you use that? If he doesnt care about his data, go Raid-0, if he wants to mirror it then go Raid-1. Both are significantly faster than RAID-5 is going to be.

 

[gunrunnerjohn]

Originally posted by: SaigonK
RAID-5 is slow, why woudl you use that? If he doesnt care about his data, go Raid-0, if he wants to mirror it then go Raid-1. Both are significantly faster than RAID-5 is going to be.

Where do you get the idea that RAID-5 is slow? RAID-0 is fast, however it has no redundancy. I've never seen or heard of a RAID-1 (mirrored) lashup that will compete with a RAID-5 configuration with at least 4 drives in the array, RAID-5 wins every time in that horserace.

 

[cleverhandle]

Originally posted by: SaigonK
RAID-5 is slow, why woudl you use that? If he doesnt care about his data, go Raid-0, if he wants to mirror it then go Raid-1. Both are significantly faster than RAID-5 is going to be.

RAID 5 is relatively fast for reads and gives good capacity for the buck - that sounds like exactly what he needs. It's certainly faster, given a good controller, than RAID 1 and gives better MB/$ for high capacity. RAID 0 would be even faster, but the risk of failure in this kind of business situation is unacceptable IMO. RAID 5 is the way to go.

 

[gunrunnerjohn]

Just think of a RAID-0 array of four drives, you have 1/4 of the reliability of a single disk! :Q That doesn't sound like much of an option for a business venture.

 

[SaigonK]

When using RAID-5 with parity, no matter how many drives you have, read intensive apps will be slower...period.


OIf course RAID-0 will be twice as fast for damn near every application than RAID-5 but I agree that for a business need, this just isnt a good choice.

 

[Nothinman]

RAID-5 reads may not be faster than RAID-0, but it's not slow by any means, the writes are slowed because of the parity that has to be calculated but even that's a small consideration.

And the more memory you put in there the more things are cached and the less stress is put on the disks. I would aim for atleast 1G memory, 512M chips aren't too bad price-wise but any bigger and things ugly, sadly. Setup Linux with Samba, take the money you would have used on Win2K(3) Server and buy a hardware IDE-RAID controller.

 

[gunrunnerjohn]

If you're going to spend money for a large scale server, spend a bit more on the RAID-5 controller. One of the bottlenecks for writes is parity calculation, but if you have dedicated hardware doing the job, it really makes a difference.

 

[exx1976]

If you want the premium for performance/redundance, go RAID 0+1. You get the spede benefits of RAID0, plus the redundancy of RAID1. I don't know exactly what you'll need to accomplish what you're going after, but I would DEFNIITELY recommend SCSI. Whoever said IDE needs to do some more homework.. It doesn't matter WHAT kind of drive array you put together (RAID 0, RAID 1, RAID 5, etc), if it's IDE, it's all going to suck. Why? Because you can only read/write to ONCE DEVICE on an IDE chain at a time. That's why SCSI rules in the server market. Sure, it's faster and has a MUCH better MTBF, but the main reason it's been so much better developed than IDE is the ability to read/write to EVERY devidce simultaneously. Not sure what you'll want to put together to accomplish your specific task, but I'll list my file servers specs:

Hardware cluster
IBM x345 (two of them)
IBM 4Mx hardware RAID cards - U160 SCSI, dual channel, 256Mb cache, on-board battery backup
Dual 2.8Ghz XEONS
Dual power supplies
GbaseT
2Gb ECC ChipKill RAM
IBM EXP300 shared storage array with thirteen 146Gb U160 10k RPM drives, 11 in RAID 5 (data), 2 in RAID 1 (Quorum)
73.4Gb U160 15k RPM RAID1 OS drives


Nets me JUST under 1.5Tb usable RAID 5 storage. It's a central file server for ~600 users (roaming profiles, home directories, IT storage, etc).

HTH,
exx

 

[Jeff7181]

Would a server CPU be advisable? Would an Opteron be much faster than an MP2400 or an XP2500 or a P4 2.4C? In addition to the media files, the owner wants to be able to share smaller files like MP3's and Word templates and stuff like that too.
What type of CPU, how much RAM, and what type of hard drives would YOU get for a server that will be performing these duties?

 

[Genx87]

If all it is doing is streaming then I dont think you need a server CPU. Your main bottleneck will be your Nic followed by your disks. All the CPU will be doing is making sure the disks are feeding data. You may want to look into getting something with 66Mhz PCI slots and running a gig card. With 40 users streaming data from the machine you will need all the bandwidth you can get.

 

[exx1976]

Well, if it's ONLY going to be serving up files, then the CPU and memory don't really matter a WHOLE lot. Your two primary concerns are going to be your disk storage subsystem, and your network connection. I would get nothing less than GbaseT, and make sure it goes straight into the backbone. For disks, I'd try and get Ultra 320 15k drives. As I stated, 0+1 will be your absolute fastest, with RAID 5 being a close second (ONLY for read operations, RAID 1 will be faster for write operations because it doesn't have to calculate the parity information). However, 0+1 is the most wasteful of drive space, since you can only utilize 50% of the drive space that you purchase. So, if you purchase 8 73.4 Gb drives, and you make two RAID 0 arrays of 4 drives each, then mirror them, you only get 4 drive's worth of usable space...

I would get a P4 2.6 or so, with 512Mb of RAM (just enough so the OS doesn't choke up). Make sure you get a hardware RAID controller, and make sure it has on-board battery backup and a decent sized cache. Also, if you're building the box instead of buying a pre-built SERVER, look at server NICs. They can do a lot of the TCP/IP calculations in hardware, and they really offload a lot of the work from the processor, which speeds things up. 3COM and INTEL both make NICs you can trunk, too, thereby doubling your throughput.. Something to consider if bandwidth becomes a concern for you...

HTH,
exx

 

[Daniel]

Hardware aside does he have to do some sort of licensing fee to charge people to watch movies in his place? I'd think if so it would be the sort of thing that would be ripe for getting busted and fined pretty harshly.

 

[GprophetB]

Originally posted by: Daniel
Hardware aside does he have to do some sort of licensing fee to charge people to watch movies in his place? I'd think if so it would be the sort of thing that would be ripe for getting busted and fined pretty harshly.

And thats putting it lightly-


well said and thought thought daniel

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Daniel
Hardware aside does he have to do some sort of licensing fee to charge people to watch movies in his place? I'd think if so it would be the sort of thing that would be ripe for getting busted and fined pretty harshly.

Not sure, he only asked me about the hardware =)