New Computer Build

gman

gman

Suspended / Banned
Messages
11,100
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm back on the build!

Slighly different situation though and would appreciate some advice to cut down how much research I need to do. I've been asked to upgrade a computer which is used as a server, basically through Windows file sharing. There's no interest to put in Windows server etc, they want it just as it is except with a newer, faster computer. There's about 8 computers sharing off it and two network printers.

I reckon I fancy a build here!

So the question is, do I look at a more server oriented or just build a decent standard desktop? Would appreciate thoughts on the full works required from processor to power supply! Gigabit network card is essential and will use an SSD for the OS.

Cheers! Here we go again! lol
 
For a small user base like that it doesn't need to be anything special.. What sort of data is it serving up? General documents or chunky media files etc. how much storage?
 
Last edited:
I've been building and using computers for years and never played with a server before....until recently.

The HP N40L was on offer a few weeks back. down to £204 from the usual £245 ish. Once you take off the long running HP cashback of £100 it has cost me £104.

Have to say with Windows Home Server 2011 installed it is brilliant. I've added a 2TB drive and have automatic backup of my PC and my wifes set up and media sharing for all our music and home video etc. The media folders are just a set of shared folders where you can give everyone full access or do it by user.

With remote desktop and the dashboard I never even have to go near it except to plug in a backup (backup the server) drive and take it away afterwards.

This thing idles at 30 Watts and draws about 38W when working harder.

So having tried it I'd suggest they think twice about having a proper server.
 
What OS do they want to run? How critical is the data on it? What about backups? Is it just a fileserver?
 
They don't want a proper server, just to replace what's there but faster :) It's just a fileserver, nothing fancy.

I was thinking of using the Dell case as it's huge so plenty of room but do they not use a funny form factor of motherboard? The PSU it up high so perhaps a new case is better, the current one is pretty dirty.

The most important data is the financial software which involves transferring lots of data over the network, I'm assuming it's small sizes but loads of it. Because it uses record locking it's pretty bad for others when someone else is holding the show up running something. I've already got a 64GB SSD Drive just for the financial data and it didn't make a huge difference so I think it's the network which is slowing things down. The rest of the data is Word documents, Spreadsheets, PDF's etc and I'll be moving the old hard drives across. I'm also upgrading the switch, router and computer network cards to support Gigabit.

There's a backup solution in place so no worries about mission critical stuff.


Here's what I'm thinking for the computer:

Case - As big as possible
Motherboard - any thoughts?
i5 Processor
16GB Ram
Onboard Graphics
Carry over the Gigabit Netword Card (or would it be better to just get a new one?
New 64GB SSD for OS
Carry over 64GB SSD with financial data
Carry over 7,200rpm drives x2 with other data
Windows Ultimate 64-bit (I already have a spare licence for this so may as well use it)


Here's what I'm thinking for the network:

Procurve 2626 managed switch needs to be upgraded to a Gigabit one, but there are a number of unused connections so I need at least 16 connections. I don't think I need a managed one.

I've already got a Netgear Gigabit modem/router so that's fine.

New Gigabit network cards for all the workstations



I have a feeling the new switch is going to be expensive unless I go for a crappy brand?
 
gman said:
They don't want a proper server, just to replace what's there but faster :) It's just a fileserver, nothing fancy.

I was thinking of using the Dell case as it's huge so plenty of room but do they not use a funny form factor of motherboard? The PSU it up high so perhaps a new case is better, the current one is pretty dirty.

The most important data is the financial software which involves transferring lots of data over the network, I'm assuming it's small sizes but loads of it. Because it uses record locking it's pretty bad for others when someone else is holding the show up running something. I've already got a 64GB SSD Drive just for the financial data and it didn't make a huge difference so I think it's the network which is slowing things down. The rest of the data is Word documents, Spreadsheets, PDF's etc and I'll be moving the old hard drives across. I'm also upgrading the switch, router and computer network cards to support Gigabit.

There's a backup solution in place so no worries about mission critical stuff.

Here's what I'm thinking for the computer:

Case - As big as possible
Motherboard - any thoughts?
i5 Processor
16GB Ram
Onboard Graphics
Carry over the Gigabit Netword Card (or would it be better to just get a new one?
New 64GB SSD for OS
Carry over 64GB SSD with financial data
Carry over 7,200rpm drives x2 with other data
Windows Ultimate 64-bit (I already have a spare licence for this so may as well use it)

Here's what I'm thinking for the network:

Procurve 2626 managed switch needs to be upgraded to a Gigabit one, but there are a number of unused connections so I need at least 16 connections. I don't think I need a managed one.

I've already got a Netgear Gigabit modem/router so that's fine.

New Gigabit network cards for all the workstations

I have a feeling the new switch is going to be expensive unless I go for a crappy brand?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't bother with the ssd, won't ever have and performance gain apart from booting. Same for CPU, doesn't even really need to be an i5 for file sharing.

What specis it currently, and what is it struggling with? Record locking on a database shouldn't cause a performance hit. What database is it.

Network wise I'd consider a twin port gigabit nic and a managed switch, then team for better muti destination throughout.
 
Last edited:
The computer itself is ok, it's just getting old and very dusty inside. Perhaps an i3 will be fine, I was thinking about the MSI G45 motherboard again seeing as I know it and it's a good price.

It's a SAGE database and is very very slow. It runs fast on the server machine though which pretty much indicates that the network is the problem.

Oh I forgot about one rather important thing, the server room is roasting during summer and freezing in winter, so a case that allows good cooling is probably important.
 
So with that twin port network card, would it allow me to connect both ports into the switch and increase its filesharing performance?
 
gman said:
It's a SAGE database and is very very slow. It runs fast on the server machine though which pretty much indicates that the network is the problem.
Click to expand...

mmm, not necessarily.

personally id spend a day monitoring server resources, network bandwidth and client resources and see exactly where the issue is.

Oh I forgot about one rather important thing, the server room is roasting during summer and freezing in winter, so a case that allows good cooling is probably important.
Click to expand...

if its an enclosed space then aircon is important ;) even a portable unit will do. no amount of case fans will help a poorly ventilated room.
 
gman said:
So with that twin port network card, would it allow me to connect both ports into the switch and increase its filesharing performance?
Click to expand...

providing the switch is 802.ab (off the top of my head) compatible.

HP do a range of small procurves for sub £300 if i remember rightly that should support it.
 
Sod the dual port network card, look at the price! lol

Where else could there be a problem? Every workstation is equally as slow with the only one running at a normal speed being the server. Other files etc seem to be ok over the network, it's just the financial data. SAGE agree about the problem because of the design of the database and admit there's a lot of network traffic involved with it.
 
External.
 
gman said:
Sod the dual port network card, look at the price! lol

Where else could there be a problem? Every workstation is equally as slow with the only one running at a normal speed being the server. Other files etc seem to be ok over the network, it's just the financial data. SAGE agree about the problem because of the design of the database and admit there's a lot of network traffic involved with it.
Click to expand...

where are you looking? an intel pro 1000MT twin port card can be picked up for peanuts.

like i said, do some monitoring. theres no real point throwing new kit at the problem without really knowing 100% what the issue is. seen too many projects go nowhere because the issues werent actually addressed :)

gman said:
External.
Click to expand...

drives? backing up to?
 
neil_g said:
providing the switch is 802.ab (off the top of my head) compatible.

HP do a range of small procurves for sub £300 if i remember rightly that should support it.
Click to expand...
TP Link also do managed switches with ab LACP for £80-£130 depending on whether you want 8 or 16 ports (I know, as that's what mine are ;)).

I have a HP NC380T (ebay) dual NIC in my PC, but don't use it to its full potential.

What OS is running? That's going to be important.

TBH, if you're locking databases, you need to look at a solution that has suitable filesystem for a database. You may also find lots of memory helps too...
 
It's an external drive with scheduled backups. Perhaps there's too many computers requesting information from the single computer?

I'm seeing twin port cards starting at £100?
 
arad85 said:
TP Link also do managed switches with ab LACP for £80-£130 depending on whether you want 8 or 16 ports (I know, as that's what mine are ;)).

I have a HP NC380T (ebay) dual NIC in my PC, but don't use it to its full potential.
Click to expand...

its one reason i havent bothered with teaming and twin nics at home, theyre only ever any gain on multiple destination traffic (i.e. multiple clients to a server).
 
TBH, disk I/O is probably going to be more important than net I/O
 
The system is currently running Windows XP 32-bit so only has 3GB memory available. Will be looking to put Win 7 Ultimate 64-bit.

I think it's more the way the database has been designed for SAGE which is many many years old. Unlike the bigger versions of SAGE which I believe uses a whole different architecture (possibly SQL) Line 50 I believe is pretty resource hungry - according to SAGE that is.
 
I've just found this:


There are two ways of running Sage "across a network":

1. Install Sage on all client PC's and access shared files on the server. In this way, each PC is running Sage. When a user performs any activity there are literally thousands of I/O requests going between the PC and the file server. This means poor performance, even on gigabit networks, and if a PC has a problem during an update, there's a good chance of corruption. This is the recommended model by Sage and it is c**p. They push it on clients because it is simple to support and makes their licensing model easier.

2. Install Sage on a terminal server. You don't run Sage on the PC's. Each user runs their own Sage session on the server and displays it on the desktop. Because only the server is running Sage and all the files are local, there are no network issues, performance is hugely improved, and their is no dependency on the user PCs staying "up". If there is a problem on a PC and it disconnects during an update it doesn't matter. The session is still running on the server and the display can be reconnected.

From a systems admin point of view this is also much preferred. User's don't need Sage to be installed on their desktops at all. So they can login from anywhere (even home) and always get the same experience. And when it comes to upgrade, there is only one copy (on the server) to be upgraded.

Of course there is a cost - you need the terminal server and TS licences. How much this is will depend on the number of simultaneous users.



Ok, is it worth learning what Terminal Server is?
 
gman said:
I've just found this:


There are two ways of running Sage "across a network":

1. Install Sage on all client PC's and access shared files on the server. In this way, each PC is running Sage. When a user performs any activity there are literally thousands of I/O requests going between the PC and the file server. This means poor performance, even on gigabit networks, and if a PC has a problem during an update, there's a good chance of corruption. This is the recommended model by Sage and it is c**p. They push it on clients because it is simple to support and makes their licensing model easier.

2. Install Sage on a terminal server. You don't run Sage on the PC's. Each user runs their own Sage session on the server and displays it on the desktop. Because only the server is running Sage and all the files are local, there are no network issues, performance is hugely improved, and their is no dependency on the user PCs staying "up". If there is a problem on a PC and it disconnects during an update it doesn't matter. The session is still running on the server and the display can be reconnected.

From a systems admin point of view this is also much preferred. User's don't need Sage to be installed on their desktops at all. So they can login from anywhere (even home) and always get the same experience. And when it comes to upgrade, there is only one copy (on the server) to be upgraded.

Of course there is a cost - you need the terminal server and TS licences. How much this is will depend on the number of simultaneous users.



Ok, is it worth learning what Terminal Server is?
Click to expand...

youll need a server OS and licencing for terminal server.. itll also require a MUCH better spec server as that will take all of the load over the clients.
 
Look at the HP Microservers, about 100 quid with the cash back. Runs great as file server/storage. Got a few dotted around the house, one as a Domain and DNS Controller, One as a NAS.
 
I reckon a move away from a file sharing accounting system and onto an SQL one could be the real answer here.
 
gman said:
I reckon a move away from a file sharing accounting system and onto an SQL one could be the real answer here.
Click to expand...

again for SQL youll be needing a much higher spec server. if theres large amount of data being queried especially, id spec an i7 at least. memory will take a hammering too as well as disk I/O.

and id still spec in the dual port network card and managed switch.
 
Last edited:
When you say disk I/O, are you meaning SATA3 would be best?
 
gman said:
When you say disk I/O, are you meaning SATA3 would be best?
Click to expand...

Disk read/write performance. I'd definitely have the SQL data on separate drive(s).

I'd consider some form of disk redundancy on a SQL volume also, while you can set plans to make backups of the data they can be time consuming to restore.
 
What about a drive with cached SSD (latest Intel boards support this). Not had to worry about any form of database processing before, but I think I'd want to get it off direct writes to an HDD just due to access times and let a caching drive give you quick access whjilst the system maintains a copy in the background.

I'd definitely do a bit of googling around the subject...
 
arad85 said:
What about a drive with cached SSD (latest Intel boards support this). Not had to worry about any form of database processing before, but I think I'd want to get it off direct writes to an HDD just due to access times and let a caching drive give you quick access whjilst the system maintains a copy in the background.

I'd definitely do a bit of googling around the subject...
Click to expand...

all of our SQL boxes are writing back to RAID5ed 10/15k drives (some direct SCSI/SAS some fibre attached SAN). fast mechs are fine.
 
Last edited:
neil_g said:
all of our SQL boxes are writing back to RAID5ed 10/15k drives (some direct SCSI/SAS some fibre attached SAN). fast mechs are fine.
Click to expand...
HAhahahahah... Come on Neil, that's cheating! You aren't going to get a RAID5 (hardware RAID5 at a guess) 10k/15k array is going to be at least £1k - and that's probably only a 3 drive system connected by GBit if you're lucky....

Perhaps I should have saird "Without wanting to spend a shedload of money, how about a drive with cached SSD..."
 
well you can pick up a twin xeon powered dell 2950 with perc raid card, twin NIC for sub £400 (minus drives) ;)

but they dont want a server for some reason.

anyway my point is, even a non raid fast mech should be fine. id agree about needing faster if you were serving 20+ users maybe.
 
Last edited:
neil_g said:
well you can pick up a twin xeon powered dell 2950 with perc raid card, twin NIC for sub £400 (minus drives) ;)
Click to expand...
You can get them (with drives) for £180 on e-bay ;)

I quite fancy playing with one and virtualising a couple of machines on it, but they are going to be far too loud for my home environment....
 
arad85 said:
You can get them (with drives) for £180 on e-bay ;)

I quite fancy playing with one and virtualising a couple of machines on it, but they are going to be far too loud for my home environment....
Click to expand...

180, thats damn good..

they are absolutely bomb proof servers, we must have about 10-15 of them. the only failures in... many years are maybe 1 or 2 redundant power supplies. but MUCH more reliable than the couple of HP counterparts we have, those eat power supplies and regulators for breakfast.

noise wise theyre not too bad once they throttle down.
 
Last edited:
neil_g said:
noise wise theyre not too bad once they throttle down.
Click to expand...
Would you have one on your desk next to you in a quiet office?
 
arad85 said:
Would you have one on your desk next to you in a quiet office?
Click to expand...

ive had 2 on my desk while building them :D

but long term in a quiet environment probably not. at a rough guide its like having all of my case fans (akasa venom/vipers whatever theyre called) running full pelt. not LOUD but irritating lol.

if i had a "server room/loft/understairs space" i wouldnt hesitate though, recommend them to anyone. only surpassed by our newer R710/R810's.

(plus looking on ebay you can probably build one from scratch looking at all the spares available.. redundant hot swap PSU's for £20.. :eek:)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top