want a cheap media server..

[ubernewb]

okie doke.. as stated, i'm looking to build myself a dedicated media server for my house. right now, my main pc is acting as the storage bin for all my ripped movies so i can stream throughout the house to xboxes in almost every room. i think i remember reading that a pc used for strictly media streaming purposes doesn't need to be anything big, so i went and did some digging around the 'egg.

here's what i'm looking at..

AMD Sempron 64 3000+ Manila 1.6GHz

MSI K9N4 Ultra-F Socket AM2 NVIDIA nForce 550 Ultra ATX AMD Motherboard

WINTEC AMPO 512MB 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800

COOLER MASTER CAVALIER 3 CAV-T03-UW Case

COOLER MASTER eXtreme Power RS-430-PMSR/P 430W Power Supply

Scythe SCNJ-1100P 120mm Sleeve CPU Cooler


I've already got an old hdd laying around i can load my os on, and i've got an extra dvd burner as well.. the only thing i'll really need to add is the little stuff like fans, cables, etc.. but i know what i need to have to get it going, so i'm not concerned with that. the only thing i'm worried about is trying to get this thing built for as little cash as possible. the only thing i'm splurging on is the case, and that's only because i have that case already and want it to match.

the only other thing i kinda like is the mobo.. the 4 sata II ports make me happy cuz i plan on loading this thing with 4 500gb samsung hdd's, and i like the idea of not having to use any extra adapters (of course, i will anyway when this thing continues growing..)



so yeah.. sorry if this got kinda long'ish, it's just that i don't know if i'm going overkill on this, or if what i'm looking to buy will do what i want it to. advice/insights will be greatly appreciated.

thanks in advance guys..

 

[SViscusi]

What about video?

Maybe switch the motherboard to something like this?

 

[ubernewb]

onboard video will be fine.. this is just gonna act as a big NAS. the only time i'll plug a monitor in is when i set it up. thanks for the mobo rec. though.. forgot to check for gigabit lan


edit... doh! maybe not? doesn't show it being compatible with sempron cpu's

 

[MichaelD]

Gigabit LAN is really only useful if the switch you plug into is Gigabit and all the clients are too. If the switch is only 100MB, that's all you'll get to the clients. Just a thought.

Other than that...go with 1GB of memory. Not really all that much more expensive and WinXP likes 1GB of memory.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: MichaelD
Gigabit LAN is really only useful if the switch you plug into is Gigabit and all the clients are too. If the switch is only 100MB, that's all you'll get to the clients. Just a thought.

Other than that...go with 1GB of memory. Not really all that much more expensive and WinXP likes 1GB of memory.

Gigabit adapters should perform better on Fast Ethernet networks due to bigger internal caches and whatnot.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: MichaelD
Gigabit LAN is really only useful if the switch you plug into is Gigabit and all the clients are too. If the switch is only 100MB, that's all you'll get to the clients. Just a thought.

Other than that...go with 1GB of memory. Not really all that much more expensive and WinXP likes 1GB of memory.

Gigabit adapters should perform better on Fast Ethernet networks due to bigger internal caches and whatnot.

but he is just streaming them to xbox1s - 100Mb/s connectors on them

i would look into a raid5 controller - no sense in losing data....

 

[ubernewb]

having never had it before, what's the benefit to running raid? i have only had ide drives before.. the one sata drive i have now is in an external enclosure (yeah, it sucks to find out that sata drivers had to be installed during original os install)

 

[razor2025]

Originally posted by: ubernewb
having never had it before, what's the benefit to running raid? i have only had ide drives before.. the one sata drive i have now is in an external enclosure (yeah, it sucks to find out that sata drivers had to be installed during original os install)

RAID is essential if you value your data. Basically, you would run RAID 1, 3, or 5 (2,4 are uncommon options). RAID 1 is having 2 disks of same size, with 1 disk being the exact mirror of another (thus the name mirroring). RAID 3 is having 3 disks of same size, with 2 striped disk (think of odd and even data) and 3rd disk being the parity disk. It takes a little while to explain, but basically you're using 2 disk spaces out of 3, but still have the ability to get your data back in case any 1 (and only 1) of your disk fail. RAID 5 uses at least 3 disks, where all the disk have parity. I think if you have 5 disks RAID 5, you can hot swap disk that failed (depending on the RAID controller).

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: bob4432

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: MichaelD
Gigabit LAN is really only useful if the switch you plug into is Gigabit and all the clients are too. If the switch is only 100MB, that's all you'll get to the clients. Just a thought.

Other than that...go with 1GB of memory. Not really all that much more expensive and WinXP likes 1GB of memory.

Gigabit adapters should perform better on Fast Ethernet networks due to bigger internal caches and whatnot.

but he is just streaming them to xbox1s - 100Mb/s connectors on them

i would look into a raid5 controller - no sense in losing data....

Doesn't matter. Gigabit ethernet cards are typically built a bit better than Fast ethernet cards. That increased quality came with increased buffers, and even sometimes better drivers. Both of which can help performance. Even at Fast ethernet speeds.

Although this could have easily changed in the past couple of years.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: razor2025

Originally posted by: ubernewb
having never had it before, what's the benefit to running raid? i have only had ide drives before.. the one sata drive i have now is in an external enclosure (yeah, it sucks to find out that sata drivers had to be installed during original os install)

RAID is essential if you value your data. Basically, you would run RAID 1, 3, or 5 (2,4 are uncommon options). RAID 1 is having 2 disks of same size, with 1 disk being the exact mirror of another (thus the name mirroring). RAID 3 is having 3 disks of same size, with 2 striped disk (think of odd and even data) and 3rd disk being the parity disk. It takes a little while to explain, but basically you're using 2 disk spaces out of 3, but still have the ability to get your data back in case any 1 (and only 1) of your disk fail. RAID 5 uses at least 3 disks, where all the disk have parity. I think if you have 5 disks RAID 5, you can hot swap disk that failed (depending on the RAID controller).

Backups are essential if you value your data.

 

[razor2025]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: razor2025

Originally posted by: ubernewb
having never had it before, what's the benefit to running raid? i have only had ide drives before.. the one sata drive i have now is in an external enclosure (yeah, it sucks to find out that sata drivers had to be installed during original os install)

RAID is essential if you value your data. Basically, you would run RAID 1, 3, or 5 (2,4 are uncommon options). RAID 1 is having 2 disks of same size, with 1 disk being the exact mirror of another (thus the name mirroring). RAID 3 is having 3 disks of same size, with 2 striped disk (think of odd and even data) and 3rd disk being the parity disk. It takes a little while to explain, but basically you're using 2 disk spaces out of 3, but still have the ability to get your data back in case any 1 (and only 1) of your disk fail. RAID 5 uses at least 3 disks, where all the disk have parity. I think if you have 5 disks RAID 5, you can hot swap disk that failed (depending on the RAID controller).

Backups are essential if you value your data.

True, I guess I didn't specify it to "value your data being accessible at all time". Although, backing up media server can be quite costly.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: razor2025

Originally posted by: ubernewb
having never had it before, what's the benefit to running raid? i have only had ide drives before.. the one sata drive i have now is in an external enclosure (yeah, it sucks to find out that sata drivers had to be installed during original os install)

RAID is essential if you value your data. Basically, you would run RAID 1, 3, or 5 (2,4 are uncommon options). RAID 1 is having 2 disks of same size, with 1 disk being the exact mirror of another (thus the name mirroring). RAID 3 is having 3 disks of same size, with 2 striped disk (think of odd and even data) and 3rd disk being the parity disk. It takes a little while to explain, but basically you're using 2 disk spaces out of 3, but still have the ability to get your data back in case any 1 (and only 1) of your disk fail. RAID 5 uses at least 3 disks, where all the disk have parity. I think if you have 5 disks RAID 5, you can hot swap disk that failed (depending on the RAID controller).

Backups are essential if you value your data.

i guess the issue is becoming how do you, in a relative budget setup, backup of 1-2TB of data? raid 5 is excellent, raid 6 better but the controller is more expensive but how would you back that up without buillding another machine w/ a raid 5/6 1-2TB array?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: bob4432

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: razor2025

Originally posted by: ubernewb
having never had it before, what's the benefit to running raid? i have only had ide drives before.. the one sata drive i have now is in an external enclosure (yeah, it sucks to find out that sata drivers had to be installed during original os install)

RAID is essential if you value your data. Basically, you would run RAID 1, 3, or 5 (2,4 are uncommon options). RAID 1 is having 2 disks of same size, with 1 disk being the exact mirror of another (thus the name mirroring). RAID 3 is having 3 disks of same size, with 2 striped disk (think of odd and even data) and 3rd disk being the parity disk. It takes a little while to explain, but basically you're using 2 disk spaces out of 3, but still have the ability to get your data back in case any 1 (and only 1) of your disk fail. RAID 5 uses at least 3 disks, where all the disk have parity. I think if you have 5 disks RAID 5, you can hot swap disk that failed (depending on the RAID controller).

Backups are essential if you value your data.

i guess the issue is becoming how do you, in a relative budget setup, backup of 1-2TB of data? raid 5 is excellent, raid 6 better but the controller is more expensive but how would you back that up without buillding another machine w/ a raid 5/6 1-2TB array?

Really, the issue is "How important is your data?" If it's worth something, you need to figure that out for yourself. If it isn't, then don't worry about it (why worry about RAID then?).

And decent raid controllers are cheap. $3-500 can get you a decent one.

 

[ubernewb]

if it's just a back-up thing i'm not gonna bother with raid at all.. i back-up all my data to verbatim dvd-r's (thank god for my bestbuy discount) right now i've got 5 50ct spindles stacked up in my closet full of avi-converted dvd rips

and fortunately, it looks like i get to save some cash for now.. just found my old biostar sff in the garage, so i think i'll just use that and build a rack to hold the hdd's. the only things i need to buy are a new cpu cooler, some ram, a 4 port sata II card, and some cooling fans.. totalled it all out on the 'egg and i'm dropping my pre-hdd expense to a little under $140. not too shabby if i do say so myself