oh yea last detail, I'm still waiting on those acer lcds to come out.. but I did nab the CRT
might just settle for dells though
might just settle for dells though
Either you are building this machine because you have done well in life financially and for the purpose of making everyone on AT drool, having a full disregard to practicality....or I call shens. We must see pics.
heh no im doing alright financially, but im no millionaire. Theres a type of government loan I took out to start my own company as opposed to my work which is the identical work but I have enough clients now to support myself like this.. I was just waiting to have the perfect equipment (on my own) so that I can do work in realtime.
Don't get me wrong, the computer is freakin sweat. But if you are not running a database that requires access from 15+ users, I would build two different machines. I would even break up your file server into 2 different computers. Put them all in a rackmount cabinent, and it would be sweet. I personally think there is no need to have more 1TB+ on one single raid configuration because you are leaving yourself voulnerable to downtime due to other components failing. What is your main reason that you need so much so much space for? If it is mission critical data, then raid 6 would be a good choise, but if it just to store a puch of pron, then it is a little overkill.
edit: speling and grammer
edit: speling and grammer
- May 13, 2003
- 13,704
- 7
- 81
LOL. Even I agree that having something like that for pr0n would be overkill. I fell bad about my machine being used as just a gaming machine for now. But it's temporary, so I accept it's current duties for now.
I am no expert on business class servers and I am just using the knowledge I have gained from building a file server. I generally don't think it is a good idea to use one single computer for multiple jobs. Especially if you spending more on it than most cars. I would build one machine for a workstation that requires lot of cpu power, one for mission critical data, that requires lots of redundency (raid 6, redundant power supplies, ect.) and one as an archive machine (lots of space.) But don't let me discourage you from building this monster if your goal is to build the sweetest rig possible, beacause it sure will be.
In the U.S., we do have a right to tell anyone what we think. It is called freedon of speech. We also have the choice not to listen.
BTW meelk, nice system. What do you plan to use it for? Just games and video editing?
Gamingphreek
Lifer
- Mar 31, 2003
- 11,679
- 0
- 81
It looks like you are trying to do WAY WAY too much.
First off i will guarantee you that PSU doesn't have the required amps to start all those drives at once. You have to be trying to use Staggered Spin Up.
Second off, why in the world did you go with 250Gig drives. It would seem to me that you would get better performance, save money, lower heat output, and lower power consumption by going with a bunch of 500Gig drives. Not only that the case only supports 23 5.25" bays. Where do you plan on putting 24 HDD's + 3 Optical Drives.
Next, what is with the Phase Change and water cooling. Is there any particular reason you need your system operating at -125C, or is it just for shits and giggles. I may be able to see water cooling, but for a "server style" PC such as that i would think you would have it in its own air conditioned room, with a bunch of fans. For instance even with the Phase Change and water cooling, there is no way 24 HDD's are getting sufficient cooling, absolutely no way unless you are in a seperate A/C controlled room.
Now what is with the Gigabyte I-RAM. You want to waste that much money on a system that:
A. Already consumes and unbelievable amount of power.
B. Is not even remotely quiet
C. You want it to boot up like 30 seconds quick???
I would think that for a system of that caliber you should be looking at only one thing: SCSI (RAID). There is no need for a bunch of SATA or Solid State Drives. Just wasting your money.
Next, the 16 Gig of RAM. You would have to use Vista or Win 2000 Data Center. XP and 2000 Pro (and i dont believe even 2000 Server) supports 16 Gig of RAM. This sort of reinforces what i say later (and i apologize for the harshness) but a person running this machine for a small business is not going to be running a Beta version of Windows...
Finally, as has been said, that system is definitely over the top, but for 15 users or even 5 users to use it simultaneously would be disasterous. There is no way it will be able to support a work load like that, even with the changes i suggested.
_____________________
IMO this system seem poorly configured, and almost like it is just posted to make people appear jealous. I will remain this adamant until i see pics of this thing (sorry, but i bit too unbelievable for me).
My conclusion: It would seem to me that you would be MUCH MUCH better off with a nice Blade server with 10 "blades" in it. Not only will you save money but it would probably do better.
-Kevin
First off i will guarantee you that PSU doesn't have the required amps to start all those drives at once. You have to be trying to use Staggered Spin Up.
Second off, why in the world did you go with 250Gig drives. It would seem to me that you would get better performance, save money, lower heat output, and lower power consumption by going with a bunch of 500Gig drives. Not only that the case only supports 23 5.25" bays. Where do you plan on putting 24 HDD's + 3 Optical Drives.
Next, what is with the Phase Change and water cooling. Is there any particular reason you need your system operating at -125C, or is it just for shits and giggles. I may be able to see water cooling, but for a "server style" PC such as that i would think you would have it in its own air conditioned room, with a bunch of fans. For instance even with the Phase Change and water cooling, there is no way 24 HDD's are getting sufficient cooling, absolutely no way unless you are in a seperate A/C controlled room.
Now what is with the Gigabyte I-RAM. You want to waste that much money on a system that:
A. Already consumes and unbelievable amount of power.
B. Is not even remotely quiet
C. You want it to boot up like 30 seconds quick???
I would think that for a system of that caliber you should be looking at only one thing: SCSI (RAID). There is no need for a bunch of SATA or Solid State Drives. Just wasting your money.
Next, the 16 Gig of RAM. You would have to use Vista or Win 2000 Data Center. XP and 2000 Pro (and i dont believe even 2000 Server) supports 16 Gig of RAM. This sort of reinforces what i say later (and i apologize for the harshness) but a person running this machine for a small business is not going to be running a Beta version of Windows...
Finally, as has been said, that system is definitely over the top, but for 15 users or even 5 users to use it simultaneously would be disasterous. There is no way it will be able to support a work load like that, even with the changes i suggested.
_____________________
IMO this system seem poorly configured, and almost like it is just posted to make people appear jealous. I will remain this adamant until i see pics of this thing (sorry, but i bit too unbelievable for me).
My conclusion: It would seem to me that you would be MUCH MUCH better off with a nice Blade server with 10 "blades" in it. Not only will you save money but it would probably do better.
-Kevin
Gamingphreek:
I have my reasons, my setup, etc.. This is what I'm using.
I don't want you to break down everything I decided based on a LOT of research, the way I wanted to do it, etc..
Staggered spin up - tekram areca raid controller fixes this problem. It boots up fine.
24 hds and 3 optical drives - the hotswap bays allow me to take 3 5.25" bays and turn them into 5 3.5" bays.. so I have 5 of these in the case, and the rest are used for the optical drives (and I might add a fan control later)
phase change - I decided it was not worth it, considering what I had paid for my CPUs to begin with.
Water cooling - just to squeeze some extra performance out of stuff.. and keep the heat low.
Gigabyte i-RAM: I honestly find that this makes my life a lot easier, and I longer have that "oh no, my drive must be fragmented, thats why my system is laggy" feeling. More of a "I'd like to have it" than a necessity.
The space - although I have said in another post that I required it (maybe 1.5-2 TB would be what would be enough for my work), truth be told I bought 30 drives of this type for about $1,200 CDN from a wholesaler going bankrupt.. I'd just like to have it in my system since I got them anyway.. I don't feel like having a seperate rig just for a fileserver, although it would make my life easier in many ways.
Drives cooling - they are hot, yes.. thankfully they are not too loud though, but they have fans all over them and places to go with the eat, so I'm not too worried. I'll report any problems though.
Ram - I did go somewhat overboard, but I'm sure I'm gaining performance too..
Blade servers - that's actually a REALLY good idea, I wish I had thought of it.. but I still got a nice huge cube to work with.
Actual server use - Only myself at this time, not 5 or 15 users. Just a lot of processor power, ram and video cards to make things work well.
I have my reasons, my setup, etc.. This is what I'm using.
I don't want you to break down everything I decided based on a LOT of research, the way I wanted to do it, etc..
Staggered spin up - tekram areca raid controller fixes this problem. It boots up fine.
24 hds and 3 optical drives - the hotswap bays allow me to take 3 5.25" bays and turn them into 5 3.5" bays.. so I have 5 of these in the case, and the rest are used for the optical drives (and I might add a fan control later)
phase change - I decided it was not worth it, considering what I had paid for my CPUs to begin with.
Water cooling - just to squeeze some extra performance out of stuff.. and keep the heat low.
Gigabyte i-RAM: I honestly find that this makes my life a lot easier, and I longer have that "oh no, my drive must be fragmented, thats why my system is laggy" feeling. More of a "I'd like to have it" than a necessity.
The space - although I have said in another post that I required it (maybe 1.5-2 TB would be what would be enough for my work), truth be told I bought 30 drives of this type for about $1,200 CDN from a wholesaler going bankrupt.. I'd just like to have it in my system since I got them anyway.. I don't feel like having a seperate rig just for a fileserver, although it would make my life easier in many ways.
Drives cooling - they are hot, yes.. thankfully they are not too loud though, but they have fans all over them and places to go with the eat, so I'm not too worried. I'll report any problems though.
Ram - I did go somewhat overboard, but I'm sure I'm gaining performance too..
Blade servers - that's actually a REALLY good idea, I wish I had thought of it.. but I still got a nice huge cube to work with.
Actual server use - Only myself at this time, not 5 or 15 users. Just a lot of processor power, ram and video cards to make things work well.
We demand pics of this beast. Also, if you dont need so many drives you could always sell me some
phaxmohdem
Golden Member
lotus503
Diamond Member
- Feb 12, 2005
- 6,502
- 1
- 76
Quite a rig, however I would suggest
an actual case that has a sata backplane, seems like a waste to get all those supermicro hot swaps when something liek this is actually suited for what your trying to do
http://www.servercase.com/miva/miva?/Me...91-SS&Category_Code=6U%2F8U+Rackmounts.
I just built out two of these for work. Only I went with eight, 8 port 3ware 8500s's.
Seems like some fo the parts are just silly, like adding 2 gigs of RAM to the controller. I mean Our company writes to our arrays 24/7 non stop IO's and we didnt see a need for such high cache sizes. I cant imaginbe you would be doign anything requiring that.
I figure since you wont really want to go past 2 terabytes per Lun anyway even though the Areca cards can do it, why not split out the controllers for some redundancy.
Wow....24 maxtors??? With that many Maxtors you may want to have like 10 hot spares for failures. I would get something else...WD or Seagate.
- May 13, 2003
- 13,704
- 7
- 81
I've got a minor version of this system. And while the person may or may not ever be getting this, I consider it an interesting thread regardless.
- May 13, 2003
- 13,704
- 7
- 81
Well, here is the case, in use in my computer room at home. Like I said, I have a minor version of that machine. Here are the specs for my machine.
I stopped reading after the line with "two Seasonic 600W PSUs - one for the hard drives".
EDIT: I didn't see how many HDs he specified. Still don't see why he needs all that stuff. I'd say he'll never end up building it.
EDIT: I didn't see how many HDs he specified. Still don't see why he needs all that stuff. I'd say he'll never end up building it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter