locked
Question - My WHS has a Celeron 420 CPU RRS feed

  • Question




  • I have recently noticed in the WHS documentation that the minimum CPU requirement for WHS is a Pentium 3 processor.

    The computer store that built the WHS box installed an Intel Celetron 420 CPU which is below the minimum CPU requirement.  They probably did this to keep the purchase price of the WHS down.

    I have a 1.57 Tb backup database and on Sundays sometimes it takes 6 hours for the database cleanup to complete which also delays the automatic backup for the 3 clients.

    Do you think if I replaced the CPU with a Penium Duo Core CPU this issue would not occur because the backups and cleanup would run faster.  My network is a Gigabit network.  The WHS has 2 Gb of memory.

    Thanks again for your help!

    Bill

    Best Regards, Bill Artman Kansas City - USA
    Monday, February 16, 2009 6:29 PM

Answers

  • "System" is a catch-all. It's everything except the shares, duplication, and backups. Do you have some piece of software installed on your server which is making use of space on the storage pool disks, but outside of the shares?

    In any case, I think that you'd see a small improvement in performance if you upgraded your processor to a faster one (as long as your MB supports it). I don't think it would be more than 10% though.

    I'm also curious why you're storing your images on your local workstation? I've mentioned my own workflow elsewhere; it involves moving images entirely to the server as soon as possible. Once I'm done editing an image, it goes onto the server, in a share with duplication turned on. Probably just that would cut down on the size of your backup database...

    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Monday, February 16, 2009 8:38 PM
    Moderator

All replies

  • Why is your backup database so large?

    I don't think that replacing the current processor will have more than a minor impact on the cleanup time; finding a way to reduce the size of your backup database is likely to help more.

    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Monday, February 16, 2009 6:53 PM
    Moderator

  • Ken;

    Thanks for your reply.  I think I looked at the wrong number.  My backup database is 875 Gb not 1.57 Tb as I mentioned in my post.  I am a professional photographer with hundreds of very large files.

    Here is the Server Storage breakdown:

    Total storage capacity:  2.27 TB

    Shared Folders:  11 GB

    Duplication:  335 MB

    PC Backups:  875 GB

    System:  897 GB

    Free Space:  545 GB

    I know that the system disk also has part of the backup database (I think) but the System is larger than the PC Backups.



    Best Regards, Bill Artman Kansas City - USA
    Monday, February 16, 2009 7:52 PM
  • I think you did the same mistake on your post from We Got Served forum. I just post an answer for you. Copy and paste is not always the best solution for posting on different website...

    Klode
    Monday, February 16, 2009 8:01 PM
    Moderator
  • Klode;

    When I have a question I sometimes post the same question on two different forums because in this case (I am assuming) the We Got Served forum is a different community of people and users than this Microsoft Forum and I am want to obtain as much information on my question as possible.

    I did not mean to use improper online forum etiquette.

    Thanks!
    Best Regards, Bill Artman Kansas City - USA
    Monday, February 16, 2009 8:32 PM
  • "System" is a catch-all. It's everything except the shares, duplication, and backups. Do you have some piece of software installed on your server which is making use of space on the storage pool disks, but outside of the shares?

    In any case, I think that you'd see a small improvement in performance if you upgraded your processor to a faster one (as long as your MB supports it). I don't think it would be more than 10% though.

    I'm also curious why you're storing your images on your local workstation? I've mentioned my own workflow elsewhere; it involves moving images entirely to the server as soon as possible. Once I'm done editing an image, it goes onto the server, in a share with duplication turned on. Probably just that would cut down on the size of your backup database...

    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Monday, February 16, 2009 8:38 PM
    Moderator
  • I'm running with a Celeron 430 with no performance problems.  I'm also running a SQL Server database and My Movies Server for Windows Media Center.

    When i'm physically logged onto the machine, it is noticably slower with window draws, opening applications, etc.  However, for backups and file transfers it seems plenty fast. 

    An advantage of the single core Celerons (420,430,etc) is they run cooler and quieter then any Core 2 or Athlon X2.  The Celeron 430 is just 35W TDP.  They are also dirt cheap  :)  In my case, with 4 drives in an El-Cheapo case, I worry more about power and heat then performance.
    Monday, February 23, 2009 8:55 AM