which of 3 old mobo's to use for NAS?

[jalyst]

What are you're seeking from the NAS? Heavy traffic file sharing?

Not entirely sure yet, but I know that Intel's superior CPU and memory sub-system performance /watt will stand me in good stead...
The only thing that may let it down is the south-bridge I/O performance for SATA/RAID etc. The IGP should work well enough as there's already good driver support.

I don't see anything promising from that chipset. Once you setup a soft Raid, all those features are out of the windows. Those are purely for Windows.

I will try the chipset's "firmware RAID" 1st and see how it goes before trying software RAID: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Matrix_RAID

 

[mamexp]

Not entirely sure yet, but I know that Intel's superior CPU and memory sub-system performance /watt will stand me in good stead...
The only thing that may let it down is the south-bridge I/O performance for SATA/RAID etc. The IGP should work well enough as there's already good driver support.




I will try the chipset's "firmware RAID" 1st and see how it goes before trying software RAID: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Matrix_RAID

I dont want to dissapoint you but i have used those ...."firware RAID" They're not HW raid by anymean. And i dont see any performance advantage over the SW raid. So its never appealing to me. I dont want you to face the same wall.

And i disagree on the claim of the Intel budget/midrange solution is superior. Its even less true in NAS application.

I used both Intel and AMD and did my own benchmark (got apps from work). Other than encoding/decoding and gaming, they're both about the same. AMD even does better for me (i'm doing crypto alot).

So dont tight yourself up with only Intel solution. Believe it or not, when i looked at power efficiency, AMD has better choice.

 

[bookmage]

yeah... im would argue the intel budget/midrange is equal to amd or less... with the amd being better bang for the buck. however, depending on ur usage, u may get more performance per watt...
and since you haven't decided on the purpose of the nas... general file sharing? or media streaming? or something else? either hw or sw might be more than adequate depending on ur network... I've taken a more realistic approach and only really need streaming High def files or so across the network. That works well for the most part on the 100MB network. And everything is linux software raid or WHS. When I upgrade to the Gig network, I will reevaluate and may change, but I have found software raid on even s754 mobos to be adequate.
If you really want the performance, then go ahead and pay for it...
otherwise, i would save my money for more hard drives :-D
1TB 2.5in drives FTW!!!

 

[jalyst]

I dont want to dissapoint you but i have used those ...."firware RAID" They're not HW raid by anymean. And i dont see any performance advantage over the SW raid. So its never appealing to me. I dont want you to face the same wall.

And i disagree on the claim of the Intel budget/midrange solution is superior. Its even less true in NAS application.

I used both Intel and AMD and did my own benchmark (got apps from work). Other than encoding/decoding and gaming, they're both about the same. AMD even does better for me (i'm doing crypto alot).

So dont tight yourself up with only Intel solution. Believe it or not, when i looked at power efficiency, AMD has better choice.

Interesting comments RE the firmware RAID, thanks.
If it does turn-out to be negligible difference in performance then I'd be best served sticking with software RAID, as it'd be far more versatile/flexible.

There may well be some encoding/decoding, particularly if I migrate from it being purely a NAS to a partial MythTV back-end.

I've read AMD's chipset w/IGP has slightly better thermal/power efficiency...
But aside from the IGP I've not seen any indications that the chipset as-a-whole lends itself to better I/O performance...
On the CPU side Intel has a well documented performance/watt edge, but as with everything this always depends on the application.

Case in point:
You found with crypto AMD was actually better!
Sometimes apps can be compiled with optimisations specific to one CPU micro-architecture, so any advantage/s a competing micro-architecture has become moot.

It terms of 'bang for buck', in the lower range AMD prolly has the edge in this sort of system build.
But at this lower range (same gen. chipsets etc) there's not a huge price differential between the two systems, at least not here in Australia...

 

[jalyst]

yeah... im would argue the intel budget/midrange is equal to amd or less... with the amd being better bang for the buck. however, depending on ur usage, u may get more performance per watt...
and since you haven't decided on the purpose of the nas... general file sharing? or media streaming? or something else? either hw or sw might be more than adequate depending on ur network... I've taken a more realistic approach and only really need streaming High def files or so across the network. That works well for the most part on the 100MB network. And everything is linux software raid or WHS. When I upgrade to the Gig network, I will reevaluate and may change, but I have found software raid on even s754 mobos to be adequate.
If you really want the performance, then go ahead and pay for it...
otherwise, i would save my money for more hard drives :-D
1TB 2.5in drives FTW!!!

I hadn't considered 2.5" HDD's as part of my build...
I can imagine how they'd gain an edge in an enterprise environment, but I can't see how in my smaller-scale build.
What's the logic behind 2.5" drives for you; is it perf/$, performance, or saving $?

cheers,
j

 

[bookmage]

They make 2.5in SAS drives for enterprise environment. They do come in 10L and 15K rpms in roughly the same sizes as their 3.5in counterparts. These days, I'm looking more for low wattage/heat and less space. I'm moving away from the rack environment w/2u or 4u servers at home... With the standardization of SATA connectors for desktop and laptop drives, I can mix and match drives as I want without needing additional adapters. and they make some nice enclosures/drive racks for them.

I've pretty much gone all 2.5in for system drives and 1TB storage drives in my servers. Since most systems/users don't notice any diff between 5400 or 7200, I can use what is affordable for system drives. I can also throw in some 2.5inch SAS drives, but that requires a SAS controller and a mobo w/supporting PCI-e slots. All this just becomes factors in my upgrade plans.
It also simplifies inventory management and cuts down on my spreadsheet. 2.5inch drives are also easier to handle, "feel" sturdier, maybe more durable due to the portable nature of laptop drives, and take up less space.

and between the Intel/AMD platrforms, roughly, one had lower speeds/wattage at idle, the other had lower wattage during loads... (IIRC from comparisons done last year?)... so it varied depending on how often they would sit at load, or at idle... I think Intel at idle ran at 1Ghz and higher watt, while AMD ran at 800Mhz and lower watt. But Intel at full load ran less watt for equivalent Ghz...

I went cheap w/AMD since performance had no *real world impact* in my day 2 day... taking the extra few seconds/minutes didn't really matter and 4+GB of ram is enough to keep things fast. If I was encoding, I would look at SAS or the WD Raptor drives.

oh and prices vary by continent, so things may be equal $ down in Oz...

 

[jalyst]

thanks for your insights, I will be updating this soon with details of my new platform <watch this space>