Need large, cheap data archival (min. 8TB)

[tcsenter]

Yes, but unless he wants his "server" to actually do trans-coding, then he would most likely be better off with a NAS. Less power, less heat, less noise, less hassle, and physically smaller. Not necessarily cheaper, but you can get decent 4-bay QNAP NAS units (TS-431) for under $300 on sale or on ebay.

Many affordable/entry-level NAS struggle with higher-profile transcoding, and some third-party media server apps (e.g. Plex) don't support hardware-specific implementations so they, too, can suffer in performance. See: http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-network-attached-storage/

Also, Intel Quick Sync is enabled on almost all i3 and i5 Ivy Bridge parts except for the cut-down Pentium and Celeron.

 

[Yakk]

NAS + phone + Chromecast Ultra works great with h.265. That's my new setup, no htpc needed anymore.

Plus I can stream anywhere I am.

 

[Charlie98]

Just FYI, and based on my personal experience... MPEG (et al) to h.264 is significant, h.264 to h.265 isn't so much. Although I rip everything to h.265 now, the file size is not that much different than h.264... I wouldn't go out of my way to do it. I even spent the money on the GTX950 to get native h.265 decode (if that's the proper word,) which is nice, but it was a very small gain.

I think VLC will play h.265, but I don't know about your Linux OS options.

Not a bit external full-size HDD guy... I had overheat problems with my single Seagate example. I do use Seagate portable HDD's extensively, however.

 

[Malogeek]

Just FYI, and based on my personal experience... MPEG (et al) to h.264 is significant, h.264 to h.265 isn't so much. Although I rip everything to h.265 now, the file size is not that much different than h.264... I wouldn't go out of my way to do it. I even spent the money on the GTX950 to get native h.265 decode (if that's the proper word,) which is nice, but it was a very small gain.

Weird, my files are usually around 40-50% smaller going from h264 to h265. That's significant gains for me.

 

[Charlie98]

Weird, my files are usually around 40-50% smaller going from h264 to h265. That's significant gains for me.

Well.... and that's what I expected when I switched to h.265, and why I spent the money on the GTX. Using Handbrake and generic settings, I might have a 10% smaller file. As I said, this is my experience. It does make a difference if it's a big BD file or such, not so much just ripping a 2hr DVD.

Maybe I'll have to experiment with the transcode settings again...

 

[Malogeek]

As I said, this is my experience. It does make a difference if it's a big BD file or such, not so much just ripping a 2hr DVD.

Probably due to the resolution of the content as I'm going from h264 to h265 on 1080p sourced from BluRays. There isn't as much data at 480p for the newer techniques to work with to make much difference.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Weird, my files are usually around 40-50% smaller going from h264 to h265. That's significant gains for me.

Are we talking the same quality settings?
Because I routinely reduce filesizes by 70% going from h264 (BD) to h264 (MKV)

 

[Yakk]

Sound quality settings also make a good difference. Downsample to stereo or pass-through surround?

 

[Malogeek]

Because I routinely reduce filesizes by 70% going from h264 (BD) to h264 (MKV)

That's a fairly normal reduction from BD, depending on quality settings of course. Usually I'm set at default CF20.

For audio I always keep pass-through HD Audio, english track only.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

That's a fairly normal reduction from BD, depending on quality settings of course. Usually I'm set at default CF20.
For audio I always keep pass-through HD Audio, english track only.

I know, which is why I was asking about the CF setting in a tongue-in-cheek manner