Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Please help superboyac build a server (2013 edition).

<< < (3/31) > >>

wraith808:
For what you said you are going to use it for... I'm with 40.  A NAS might be a better option.  With an OS comes other maintenance issues, and if you're not using it every day, but just accessing it, those can sneak up on you.  A NAS is meant for one thing... storage.  And with what you said, a single-responsibility type machine might be best.  It's really just a server that's optimized for serving files and such.

Stoic Joker:
I'm not sure I'd want to deal with virtualizing anything on a NAS. But outside of that overkill probably should be kept to a minimum. I got the impression 40 was leaning towards two different boxes...each purposefully built to its specific task.

wraith808:
I'm not sure I'd want to deal with virtualizing anything on a NAS. But outside of that overkill probably should be kept to a minimum. I got the impression 40 was leaning towards two different boxes...each purposefully built to its specific task.
-Stoic Joker (July 31, 2013, 06:07 PM)
--- End quote ---

It really depends on the NAS and the software.  A lot of them are OSes in and of themselves.

Stoic Joker:
I'm not sure I'd want to deal with virtualizing anything on a NAS. But outside of that overkill probably should be kept to a minimum. I got the impression 40 was leaning towards two different boxes...each purposefully built to its specific task.
-Stoic Joker (July 31, 2013, 06:07 PM)
--- End quote ---

It really depends on the NAS and the software.  A lot of them are OSes in and of themselves.
-wraith808 (July 31, 2013, 08:40 PM)
--- End quote ---

Yes, for the storage aspect. But a NAS is just a big storage bucket that isn't going to have (a real rip tearing processor or a boat load of RAM) the resources to handle virtualization properly. They tend to be minimalistic and dutifully plod along much like a good mule. For virtualization you need cores lots of them...there is really no such thing as too many.

Which is why I was agreeing with 40 on the 2 server option, it'll keep the price down on the storage side because speed isn't a huge concern, and performance up on the virtualization side as you need a moderate amount of really fast stuff to keep it running properly.

We're currently reviewing a new potential client that hat a budget consciously built server that is tearing itself apart trying to keep 3 OSs running on storage class hardware. Their Exchange server (part of SBS11) is keeping the processor at 88-100% 24/7 ... But they're trying to run it on only 2 cores with 6GB of RAM (Yikes!). I gave our Exchange server 8 cores and 16GB of RAM and it's happy as a lark (However the accountants are not allowed in my server room.. ;)).

40hz:
I'm not sure I'd want to deal with virtualizing anything on a NAS. But outside of that overkill probably should be kept to a minimum. I got the impression 40 was leaning towards two different boxes...each purposefully built to its specific task.
-Stoic Joker (July 31, 2013, 06:07 PM)
--- End quote ---

That's pretty much it. For a file server you'd want to keep it fairly focused with that capacity storage. I say 'NAS' in a generic way, but that doesn't mean it can't be running a 'full' OS.

I also try not to allow all my eggs to be placed in one basket unless it's a basket using 'enterprise grade' hardware. And even then I'd prefer it be on multiple devices.

Here's the thing... when you start stepping outside of the usual hardware framework and start considering special things like SATA port multipliers, you have enough driver and other concerns to not want to have to deal with it on an 'everything box.'

BTW: here's some good basic vids from Eli that are worth looking at if you're new to any of  
this:





 :Thmbsup:

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page