none
Best Hardware Config?

    Frage

  • I understand the minumim hardware requirements, but what would be the "best" as far as CPU and Memory are concerned? What would be the point of diminishing return?
    Montag, 5. März 2007 03:30

Alle Antworten

  •  RonRock wrote:
    I understand the minumim hardware requirements, but what would be the "best" as far as CPU and Memory are concerned? What would be the point of diminishing return?

    I am considering building a Core 2 based system with 1 gig of memory and a 160 gig hard drive and using my curent two 500 gig eSATA hard drives. This would give me a very quiet system. Right now I'm overkill with my config being a Prescott based power sucking machine.

    I wouldn't go less than 1 gig of memory and anything over a 1 ghz CPU should be fine.

    Montag, 5. März 2007 03:42
  • I am wondering the same thing.  I am running 1 GB of 800 RAM and was wondering if there's any point going to 2 GB.

    Running a core duo Pentium D 915 (2.8 Ghz).

    I am running six clients.
    Montag, 5. März 2007 03:45
  •  fje00 wrote:
    I am wondering the same thing.  I am running 1 GB of 800 RAM and was wondering if there's any point going to 2 GB.

    Seems like overkill to me.  From what I've seen so far, backup is the most CPU intensive task for WHS.  During a full backup, my 2GHz P4 with 512 MB RAM runs at about 40% CPU.  But as it nearly maxes out my 100 Mbps network (85 Mbps), a faster CPU or more RAM isn't going to make backup faster or better.

    However, if you're running a gigabit LAN and want to use as much of it as possible, or if you're planning to stream media to all six of your clients or if you have plans on running lots of other services other than WHS on the box, maybe you need more resources.

    Are you trying to build WHS, the Gamer Edition? 

    Montag, 5. März 2007 04:51
  •  fje00 wrote:
    I am wondering the same thing.  I am running 1 GB of 800 RAM and was wondering if there's any point going to 2 GB.

    Running a core duo Pentium D 915 (2.8 Ghz).

    I am running six clients.

    I'd say there's no point because the nature of a WHS means that an IO bottleneck (e.g. network and disk speed) or CPU bottleneck are more likley than memory based ones.

    Expanding RAM is useful if you want to run more programs or "bigger" programs (i.e. ones with more features), but once a WHS install is up and running it's not designed to have additional software installed, so unless there is a bug which causes memory not to be re-used after a task, you're not likley to see any benefit in going from 1GB to 2.

    I'm running 3 clients off a 512MB box without any memory usage issues, so extrapolate that to say that 1GB for 6 clients would be more than enough.

    Montag, 5. März 2007 07:57
  •  RonRock wrote:
    I understand the minumim hardware requirements, but what would be the "best" as far as CPU and Memory are concerned? What would be the point of diminishing return?

    The answer to this depends on how many clients you want to support. I've got 3 client PCs running aginst a Pentium 4 2.4Ghz with 512MB of RAM with 1x80GB internal hard disk and a 320GB USB 2.0 Hard disk over 100MB/s ethernet and it works well for me.

    The only changes I'd suggest you MUST look at are;

    1) If you're supporting more clients look at a faster networking (faster network mean faster backups if you don't schedule multiple backups to happen at the same time).

    2) If you're buying new hardware I would try to have at least 2 times the amount of disk space your clients have (so if you have three machines with 80GB hard disks, you should look at about 480GB of disk space), this gives you the ability to back up all of your machines completely no matter how full they become (the reason for twice the space is because you then have the ability to have one full complete backup, and one backup in progress).

    Apart from that the only thing I'd say is you MUST follow the MS guidelines by ensuring you use a modern system (specifically SATA as opposed to IDE disks). I tried a three year old machine and the install failed because WHS couldn't get the IDE driver working, I'm now using a Dell SC430 which is about 18 months old and I still had to get the drivers from Dell to get the network card working, so if you encounter problems don't be afraid to go hunting down the Windows 2003 server drivers from your vendor.

    Montag, 5. März 2007 08:07
  •  MurMan99 wrote:
    However, if you're running a gigabit LAN and want to use as much of it as possible, or if you're planning to stream media to all six of your clients or if you have plans on running lots of other services other than WHS on the box, maybe you need more resources.

    The box that WHS is now installed on was a recent new build running XP.  Pre WHS the purpose was to serve up the DVD collection (200+ ripped disks) primarily to the HTPC over gigabit.  And also the hddvd collection (now at four ripped disks).  Had it setup as 2TB RAID0.

    The music and photos are on another XP box serving the HTPC and other PCs around the house.

    Along comes WHS.  Initial plan is to keep it serving the video stuff, and now add the other WHS features (such as backup).  Plan to keep the music and photos on the other server for now.

    Still in the process of ripping the DVDs.  Can only get a few done per day.  Was rippping from the laptop to the XP server and achieving about 20 Mbps.  A DVD rip would take about 25 minutes.  Assumed the bottle neck was reading from the DVD drive.

    Migrated the server to WHS.  Ripping from the same laptop and throughput went to about 7Mbps.  Rips were taking over an hour.  I saw other posts about network bandwidth issues with WHS, so I plan to investigate this issue there.  But in the mean time decided I can't rip acorss the network.  Must therefore rip directly on the WHS box for now.  WHS box is therefore no longer headless and is running DVD Profiler (for the database), and DVD Decryptor until I get my collection completely ripped to the Videos share.  This will take weeks to complete.  (FYI - Rips are now taking about 20+ minutes again.)

    One thing I wanted to avoid was streaming a DVD, while backups were in process, and while also streaming music.  That's why I'm leaving at least music (also photos) on another machine for now.  I figured video streaming and client backups was all I would want to attempt simultaneously.

    Montag, 5. März 2007 17:24