Zentyal Forum, Linux Small Business Server
Zentyal Server => Installation and Upgrades => Topic started by: aspangilinan on November 03, 2011, 03:53:47 pm
-
Hi to all,
anyone suggest or comment my choose specs.
Intel Core i7-2600 (3.4G) 8mb 32nm
Intel BLKDZ68DBB3 Motherboard VSL/Virtu/ISRT
Intel Raid Controller Integrated RAID RMS2MH080
8GB Kingston Hyper X memory 4gbx2
1.0TB Seagate Barracuda Sata3 x 2
Power Supplier 700watts
for new build zentyal 64bit v2.2.1 (i just want to know if compatible this specs.)
for immediate comment or suggest.
thanks
Arnel
-
Hello,
** This is only my own opinion **
Intel Raid Controller Integrated RAID RMS2MH080
I prefer soft/fake RAID.
1.0TB Seagate Barracuda Sata3 x 2
I had to much bad experiences using Seagate HDD. I rather postpone an installation for a week instead of using those HDD. Western Digital is, still from my experience, way more reliable.
Best,
Marcus
-
Marcus and aspangilinan
I also use software raid.... my OS uses 2X500 in raid 1 and storage uses 2X2TB in raid 6. Software raid makes it easy to migrate or change thins. I use webmin to manage it graphically because I am not that good with command line.
I use the AMD hexacore and that handles the software raid no problem.... the core I7-2600 is even faster and better so you should be fine with not using a dedicated raid controller..... the systems should still work pretty fast.
Mine are all seagate drives.... actually in every machine in my house and my parents I have used Seagate drives..... knock on wood no failures or problems... hahahah :)
-
Thank you Marcus and vshaulsk for your suggestion/comment
vshaulsk
me also i have experience seagate brand, now i choose WESTERN DIGITAL and software raid.
how about my preferred motherboard what do you think Intel BLKDZ68DBB3 Motherboard VSL/Virtu/ISRT this model.
thanks
Arnel
-
I don't know anything about that motherboard... The only thing I would suggest is to look online and see how well it works with linux.
I am using an MSI board 890X series for my AMD and I found out that for some reason the linux OS does not pickup the cpu temperature. I am still working on a solution, but I have found others with the same problem online. Can't find the correct driver or something (I don't remember exactly right now).
-
Its all opinion and my preference on performance / price / features. http://uk.asus.com/Server_Workstation/Server_Motherboards/P8BM/ (http://uk.asus.com/Server_Workstation/Server_Motherboards/P8BM/)
I like the micro-atx board as it makes a compact server.
I must admit being a WD freak but not all disks are the same.
http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.aspx?id=30 (http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.aspx?id=30)
Its a choice between re4 or re4-gp depending on application.
Usually I will bung in a dual port Nic and have one port for wan and bond or bridge the other 3.
-
This looks like to me a 'pick a lot of firepower' so it must be ok for any situation.
What is the server going to be used for? Because it has rather heavy specs for an average SMB environment. Since there are not that many power consuming elements, a 700W PSU seems to me overkill. I would rather invest in a high efficient PSU (bronze/silver/gold certified) that has specs that come closer to the needs of the system. A PSU works more efficient at 50-75% of it's capacity than at 10-30% of it's capacity.
As for the disks: why do you choose these 1T disks? There are enterprise grade disks that cost a bit more but are so much more reliable. For instance the WD RE4 disks.
The hardware Raid Controller seems an OK solution to me. I would prefer a hardware controller over softraid anyway, but that is probably because of I am more familiar with hardware controllers than with software raid. The good part about this controller is the memory (for speed) and battery backed cache module, so you don't loose data when an array fails.
The components will be compatible for Zentyal 2.2 (you will be able to install ubuntu 10.04, so Zentyal can be installed too) but as you don't provide any info on the purpose of this server, an advice if this is the best setup for your server is impossible to give.
-
@Robb +1 I share all of your points.
- Way overkill configuration for SMB purpose.
- PSU efficiency
- RAID choice
- last but not least, hard disk choice: reliability does matter here
I would add that if performance matters (and I suppose it does given huge configuration you expose here), I would install system on SSD and keep your standard disks for /var and data.
-------------------------------------------------------
"I'm riding Ducati 750. Is it OK?"
::) well, it depends on what you intend to do with such a motorbike... if you see what I mean :P
-
Hi to all,
i use this specification a lot of memory but i feel the performance getting slower, is there any wrong with specification or compatibility.
INTEL CORE I7-2600K (3.4GHZ)UNLOCKED/8MB CACHE/3000 HDGFX/LGA1155 PROCESSOR
ASUS P8Z68-V (B3)Z68/4DDR3/2SATA3/SLI&CROSSFIREX/LUCIDLOGIC VIRTU/ISRT/S/BTGO/DIP2/ATX MOTHERBOARD
4x4 16GB KINGSTON 4GB DDR3 HYPER X GENESIS 1600MHZ (KHX1600C9D3/4G)
WESTERN DIGITAL 1TB CAVIAR BLACK SATA 64MB
FSP AURUM 700 80PLUS GOLD SLI 700WATTS POWER SUPPLY
please comment and suggestion.
thanks.
Arnel
-
this server serve as EMAIL SERVER, FILE SERVER and PDC.
-
is it related to this (similar) post:
http://forum.zentyal.org/index.php/topic,8581.msg35616.html#msg35616 (http://forum.zentyal.org/index.php/topic,8581.msg35616.html#msg35616) ?
In such case, I can merge it if you want... ;)
-
ok i agree to merge.
thanks.
-------------------------------------
Note from moderator: so I merged it. It would be nice if you could continue similar discussion on existing topic instead of creating a new one ;)
-
How many users are configured on this server?
I am still astonished about the massive firepower for an SMB server.
Sure, more memory will make a server smoother, but where is the balance between investment in hardware and the use of the system? What are you/your customer willing to pay for energie costs?
If this is just for email, file and PDC, I strongly suggest to reconsider your configuration.
You _could_ consider using a server with such specs as a (bare metal) virtual server host and configure several VM's on it to serve all the network needs.
-
for now almost 20users, 3 folder shared. i try to replace the NIC Card. then i let you know what is the latest update.
thanks.
Arnel
-
the point is that "performance is poor" is almost meaning less. Do not take it the bad way :D i mean that it deserves some explanation. What performance are we talking about? I'm pretty sure you mean Samba (file sharing) and refer to read/write operations (I would be very surprised if you have any authentication or mail related issue).
Increasing hardware "size" will most likely not affect CIFS performance... what is your expectation here (figures) and what do you get currently?
-
the current performance is not my expectation because im expecting more than that. because my hardware is big enough but still when i copying 245mb files it takes 15sec. my files dll extension files, do you think there's any conflict to samba.
i was thinking as of now i want to replace the NIC card.
christian, do you have any advise on this matter.
and
kindly see the link for your reference.
http://pos45.dyndns.org/tools/zentyal/users.jpg
http://pos45.dyndns.org/tools/zentyal/current_module.jpg
http://pos45.dyndns.org/tools/zentyal/filesharing.jpg
Thanks
Arnel
-
Maybe I missed it but you haven't mentioned what your network switch speeds are. Are they 10/100 or 1000 mb ports? Your example file download time would be normal in 100mb network.
-
Exactly, the whole stack has to be reviewed... but only once some facts have been clarified.
I mean it's a bit weird to start topic with "any suggest" title and list of hardware when problem is in fact "samba performance", don't you think so? ::)
Have a look here:
http://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Linux_Performance (http://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Linux_Performance)
and there:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/openspecification/archive/2009/04/10/smb-maximum-transmit-buffer-size-and-performance-tuning.aspx (http://blogs.msdn.com/b/openspecification/archive/2009/04/10/smb-maximum-transmit-buffer-size-and-performance-tuning.aspx)
http://www.hob-techtalk.com/2009/03/09/nfs-vs-cifs-aka-smb (http://www.hob-techtalk.com/2009/03/09/nfs-vs-cifs-aka-smb)
What is your target? ;)
-
On a mathematical approach:
15 seconds for a file of 245MB means: 16.3MB/s
This equals 130.6 Mbit/s
This is already more than a 100Mb NIC can transfer. I agree for a Gb network this could be improved but it can be any part of the chain between the sending device and the receiving device that acts as the bottleneck of your network read/write performance. If you want to know what is your bottleneck, you have to identify every single item in your network involving network performance and test it.
-
Sure but his file is 245mb... does it mean 245Mb or 245MB ::)
You're right with your suggestion that is to look at the whole stack to identify bottleneck (because there is obviously one... somewhere ;D) but this kind of investigation is not obvious.
-
when i replace the NIC, now i feel getting faster. my old nic hardware 1000/mbps and my switch device is 10/100mbps. i replace the nic hardward 10/100mbps to matched my network existing. and that's great to me.
for now im not stress for this issue.
anyway thanks to all comment and suggestion.
Arnel
-
aspangilinan (http://forum.zentyal.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1149) you do have a great hardware setup. More than enough apart from the fact that users create simultaneous disk access.You have a single "Desktop" hardrive and you are sharing that with 20 users. Is this using roaming profiles and various other services?