Silent-Slim-Server (SSS) - Silent PC to house the Slimserver [Archive]

tamanaco

2006-07-30, 11:54

I just wanted to start a thread with information related to the building of an aesthetically appealing (stereo-component-like) silent (fanless) PC to house the Slimserver. Given the horse power restrictions and fan noise issues that I found with most of the NAS solutions (Not to mention the "looks" that would not get the WAF) I have been looking for components to build a silent HTPC on a box that would live in my AV system cabinet. I *think* I settled on a fanless case (still under construction) from the folks of A-Tech Fabrication called the Mini-server similar to their NAS4X http://www.atechfabrication.com/products/mass_storage_NAS4X.htm I'm looking to build my Slimserver on this A-Tech case using a LV-677DC Mini-ITX motherboard from Commell http://www.commell.com.tw/Product/SBC/LV-677.HTM with a Intel Core Duo processor and a 4 Port RAID PCI Express adapter from High Point Technologies http://www.highpoint-tech.com/USA/rr2310.htm I will probably use four Seagate or Western Digital drives of 400+GB in a RAID or JBOD configuration and use Windows XP Media Center Edition as my OS. You can read the posts towards the end of this thread in the AVS forum http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=176655 on how I came to select these components.

Given the enthusiasm and positive feedback that I found in the Slim Devices Community Forum, I felt that this would be a great place to share my experience and that of other Squeezebox/Transporter owners on how to build a silent box to house the Slimserver. Btw, I'm not married to any components that I have selected so far. (I got the money, but have not bought them yet) I think we can use the components I selected as an starting reference point. I know this box is going to be a little expensive, but that's a price I'm willing to pay for a component that is going to store my FLAC music library for many years. I don't want to have to rip a large number of CDs ever again. I can justify the cost of this box to my wife, but not the cost of a Transporter.

I welcome any suggestions on hardware and also *software* to build a Silent-Slim-Server (SSS)

To finish, I'd like to say that I'm in no way related to any of the companies mentioned above. I hope that this 3rd Party Hardware room is the right place to discuss a silent HTPC to house the Slimserver. If not, I apologize.

Fire away!

tommypeters

2006-07-31, 17:31

I think you should go for Samsung drives instead, less noisy and cooler.

Bamsefar

2006-07-31, 18:26

The last generation of Western Digital hard drives have been reviewed by SPCR and been found to be very quiet and cool. Better than Samsung SpinPoints, and at least as good as old Baracudas 4.

I would go for the 500 GB WD disk(s) ;)

Mark Lanctot

2006-08-02, 12:27

I've been fussing over something like this in this thread:

http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=25892

It has me pretty excited. It's all on paper as there's no way I can justify it right now, particularly not for power savings.

There are several suggestions and conclusions I came to:

1. No way do you need that processor power! A fanless VIA processor in a Mini-ITX board ought to do and will dissipate far less heat - 7.5 W as opposed to ~60 W. Keep in mind most NAS boxes use processors clocked at less than 400 MHz.

2. Any particular reason you need RAID? If it's for storage capacity, understandable, but a USB external backup beats any sort of redundancy requirements you may have. 'Course it requires manual intervention but most of the work you'll do with it will be at the beginning as you build your library. After that, you'll only require it when you add an album or two.

3. The hard drives will need cooling or at least some airflow in the case. Particularly with 4 of them!

4. Once you add a hard drive, it's no longer silent. ;-)

5. That's really still software RAID. A true hardware RAID card from 3Ware or Adaptec is big, big bucks though, at least as much as the processor, maybe twice as much!

notanatheist

2006-08-02, 23:59

I've been fussing over something like this in this thread:

2. Any particular reason you need RAID? If it's for storage capacity, understandable, but a USB external backup beats any sort of redundancy requirements you may have. 'Course it requires manual intervention but most of the work you'll do with it will be at the beginning as you build your library. After that, you'll only require it when you add an album or two.

5. That's really still software RAID. A true hardware RAID card from 3Ware or Adaptec is big, big bucks though, at least as much as the processor, maybe twice as much!

2. A USB enclosure requires it be connected to a box hosting slimserver and always be on. A dedicated server is that box with the drive internal where it'll offer better performance.

5. Amen.

6. My solution. Hardware RAID 5, 2.6Ghz P4, 1GB RAM, 0% lag. Is it quiet? Yeah, as long as you're not out in the garage with it. :-)

DevilsAdvocate

2006-08-03, 02:00

I have:
Fanless Mini-itx - MII 6000
Samsung Spinpoint disk (250GB) (very quiet)
Windows XP
Silverstone LC09 Case

runs Slimserver and Netgear software (to support MP101)

Quiet and runs like a dream

Back up as stated above by attaching external USB once initial backup performed occassional incrementals.

Mark Lanctot

2006-08-03, 07:01

2. A USB enclosure requires it be connected to a box hosting slimserver and always be on. A dedicated server is that box with the drive internal where it'll offer better performance.

I just plug the enclosure in when I rip a couple of discs. Once a week, maybe less, for 5 minutes at a time. Sure it's slower than an internal disc but I do have 5 minutes to spare once a week. :-)

When the enclosure is not in use, I unplug it and keep it on another floor of the house. Really I should keep it in another part of town, but I'm not that paranoid. However this does offer protection from the server's power supply - if it was to go it may take all the discs with it.

This is all fine and good because I only have 68 GB of music. If it was too big for a single drive though, yeah, you'd need a RAID arrangement with some sort of redundancy.

tamanaco

2006-08-03, 12:15

1. No way do you need that processor power! A fanless VIA processor in a Mini-ITX board ought to do and will dissipate far less heat - 7.5 W as opposed to ~60 W. Keep in mind most NAS boxes use processors clocked at less than 400 MHz.

The main reason I picked the Commell motherboard with next generation Intel Core Duo processor is because I don't want to build another hardware media server in a long, long time. I want room for growth just in case the Slimserver requires more horse power in the future or if I decide to switch to another software media server that'd require more power. I also wanted to house the media server in a silent case that is going to live in my AV cabinet in the living room. I live in a one bedroom apartment, so there is no other place to put it. There also advantages to having more horse power, specially when searching a large music library. Post #7 in this tread outlines my reasons for not using an underpowered computer or NAS http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=24428

For its form factor the Commell LV677 motherboard packs a bunch of build-in features such as Giagabit Ethernet, 5.1-CH Audio (SPDIF), One PCI-Express 16x slot, two Mini-PCI sockets, TV-Out (S-Video and "optional" DVI), 2 SATA ports, one IDE interface that supports two ATAPI Devices and other features. Initially I will use this media server as a SlimServer, to store and view my photos via my LCD TV and as storage/backup for my two laptops. Btw, my understanding is that the maximun power consumption of the T2300 and T2500 Core Duos is ~31 W.

2. Any particular reason you need RAID? If it's for storage capacity, understandable, but a USB external backup beats any sort of redundancy requirements you may have. 'Course it requires manual intervention but most of the work you'll do with it will be at the beginning as you build your library. After that, you'll only require it when you add an album or two.

Yes, for storage capacity. I plan to rip a large number of CDs to FLAC... But the main reason is to have a single large and expandable volume to store my music library. I'm either going to configure the server for RAID 5 with/without a hot spare depending on how many ports (4,6 or 8) are in the PCIe RAID adapter that I finally pick. RAID 5 would result in less storage per drive, but would provide the most protection in case of a "single" drive failure. A hot spare would add the convenience factor and a shorter down time while the failed drive is rebuild on the spare. I'm also considering a JBOD configuration to save money, but it would not provide the same protection as RAID. Currently, as some one mentioned above, I'm leaning to the newer WD hard drives which run a bit cooler and a little less noisy. The other two reasons for single large volume ->Btw, I understand that the Slimserver supports symbolic links and shortcuts<- are: 1.- I won't have to reconfigure my ripping tools to store the ripped music in different volumes/folders. I have already configure the ripping tools in my two laptops and my current server to save my music in a specific folder/file structure so that I can rip 3 CDs at a time. Again, I only want to configure the tools in these computers to use the local and networked folders where my library resides once. I want to cut the steps required for ripping CDs to the minimum. 2.- I want to try and keep the music from specific genre/artists in a single folder. If I run out storage in a volume, I won't have to move part or whole folders for specific genre/artists to the new or additonal volume to keep folder naming consistency. To me is a matter of convenience.

3. The hard drives will need cooling or at least some airflow in the case. Particularly with 4 of them!

Take a look at the A-Tech fabrication site for details on their silent cases and cooling system.

4. Once you add a hard drive, it's no longer silent. ;-)

See 3. above. I think I can drastically reduce the noise using a sealed case with copper pipes for cooling.

5. That's really still software RAID. A true hardware RAID card from 3Ware or Adaptec is big, big bucks though, at least as much as the processor, maybe twice as much!

The four port SATA II Hight Point RocketRAID adapter that I mentioned above and that I'm still considering is only $150 at newegg

Mark Lanctot

2006-08-03, 12:36

Seems that you've really thought this out! It would certainly be nice to do something like this if I had the money and if the products were available here. I stand corrected on the Core Duo power consumption - I know they had improved, I didn't realize how much.

The four port SATA II Hight Point RocketRAID adapter that I mentioned above and that I'm still considering is only $150 at newegg

It's not true hardware RAID if that's what you want. It's the same as RAID that's onboard many motherboards, except that there can be more ports.

Not that there's a problem with software RAID, but you may not be getting what you think you're getting.

It's pretty easy to spot the split - there's suddenly a huge jump in price. You go from $100-$200 to $400-$600.

Mark Lanctot

2006-08-03, 13:21

The main reason I picked the Commell motherboard with next generation Intel Core Duo processor is because I don't want to build another hardware media server in a long, long time. I want room for growth

BTW I know what you mean about this. In 2003, when I bought the PC I'm still using right now, I did extensive research and got the very-new 2.8 GHz P4C, the first 800 MHz FSB processor with HyperThreading and dual-channel RAM. It was pretty leading-edge back then and fairly expensive, but it's still fast and capable today.

max.spicer

2006-08-03, 15:55

Can a JBOD configuration actually stand to lose one of its disks? To do this, I assume it has to store the directory structure on both disks somehow, otherwise you'd be stuffed if you lost the disk with it on. If it stores it on both, what happens when you lose one?

By the way, I do realise that in the best-case scenario you lose all the data from one disk.

Max

tamanaco

2006-08-04, 16:30

.It's not true hardware RAID if that's what you want. It's the same as RAID that's onboard many motherboards, except that there can be more ports.

Not that there's a problem with software RAID, but you may not be getting what you think you're getting.

It's pretty easy to spot the split - there's suddenly a huge jump in price. You go from $100-$200 to $400-$600.

I don't understand. This is a SATA RAID controller that allows you to create RAID levels 0, 1, 5 10 and JBOD volumes using SATA drives. It allows hot-swap, hot spare, online capacity expansion, online RAID level migration and online monitoring via a browser. What I'm talking about is bus-based RAID which I consider a "hardware" implementation of RAID. Besides maybe better performance due to faster controllers, what do the SATA controllers from 3Ware or Adaptec do with their integrated RAID technology that the HighPoint adapters do not do? If it is an issue of more features, which features would help me in building a better RAID for my media server? I know that there are some newer motherboards that have onboard RAID, but I also consider that these newer motherboards are implementing "hardware" RAID (Integrated RAID Technology) as supposed to "software" RAID not in the controller's or motherboard's chips. Maybe the way that it is implemented now-a-days also changed the way that it is described? Maybe I'm confused...??? I don't know???

In my IT days, I only considered software RAID when you built a RAID using hard drives connected to either native IDE/SATA/SCSI ports on the motherboard or connected to an IDE/SATA/SCSI non-RAID controller. (Or a combo). You then installed special drivers, maybe some computer BIOS updates and the RAID management application on top of the OS. In the RAID adapter that I'm talking about, some or most of these RAID software (firmware) is integrated in the adapter. As far as I know, you can not hot swap in a "software" RAID implementations as this requires that some sort of switch be implemented in hardware to remove and replace a drive safely without shutting down.

Maybe you're talking about SCSI technology which has better performance and is thus more expensive. Expensive SCSI RAID controllers, in my day, were usually installed in Intelligent External Enclosures.

Can a JBOD configuration actually stand to lose one of its disks? To do this, I assume it has to store the directory structure on both disks somehow; otherwise you'd be stuffed if you lost the disk with it on. If it stores it on both, what happens when you lose one?

By the way, I do realize that in the best-case scenario you lose all the data from one disk.

I think you answered your on question. "best-case scenario you lose the data from one disk." As they say... there is no "R" (Redundancy) in JBOD. For file recovery there is a better chance of getting “some” of your files back from the other drives than with RAID 0 because there is no file stripping across the drives. But, it depends on the OS and file system in use.The only other advantage of JBOD that I can think about is that you avoid wasting disk capacity on “R”. Backing up is recommended in any array/drive configuration unless you can build a fully redundant Parallel Sysplex server with geographically dispersed offsite mirrors. :-)

Mark Lanctot

2006-08-04, 17:05

I don't understand. This is a SATA RAID controller that allows you to create RAID levels 0, 1, 5 10 and JBOD volumes using SATA drives. It allows hot-swap, hot spare, online capacity expansion, online RAID level migration and online monitoring via a browser. What I'm talking about is bus-based RAID which I consider a "hardware" implementation of RAID. Besides maybe better performance due to faster controllers, what do the SATA controllers from 3Ware or Adaptec do with their integrated RAID technology that the HighPoint adapters do not do? If it is an issue of more features, which features would help me in building a better RAID for my media server? I know that there are some newer motherboards that have onboard RAID, but I also consider that these newer motherboards are implementing "hardware" RAID (Integrated RAID Technology) as supposed to "software" RAID not in the controller's or motherboard's chips. Maybe the way that it is implemented now-a-days also changed the way that it is described? Maybe I'm confused...??? I don't know???

In my IT days, I only considered software RAID when you built a RAID using hard drives connected to either native IDE/SATA/SCSI ports on the motherboard or connected to an IDE/SATA/SCSI non-RAID controller. (Or a combo). You then installed special drivers, maybe some computer BIOS updates and the RAID management application on top of the OS. In the RAID adapter that I'm talking about, some or most of these RAID software (firmware) is integrated in the adapter. As far as I know, you can not hot swap in a "software" RAID implementations as this requires that some sort of switch be implemented in hardware to remove and replace a drive safely without shutting down.

Maybe you're talking about SCSI technology which has better performance and is thus more expensive. Expensive SCSI RAID controllers, in my day, were usually installed in Intelligent External Enclosures.

What I'm talking about is how the RAID array is controlled.

A true hardware RAID controller will have its own CPU to control this as well as onboard RAM. It does not depend on the system CPU or the system RAM. Hence the extreme cost, it's really its own computer. Often these controllers will have large heatsinks on the CPU.

See http://www.3ware.com/products/serial_ata2-9590.asp Note the heatsink on the CPU as well as the inclusion of 256 MB of onboard memory.

Software RAID depends on OS drivers, system CPU and system RAM. Reliability and performance were historically not as good as a result. However, with today's PC hardware, the impact is minimal and certainly doesn't warrant the extra cost for hardware RAID for a home user.

But if you can spare the bucks, hardware RAID offers best-available reliability and performance since it has dedicated processing power and memory. It's just that the difference may be small with the high-end hardware you're looking at - the CPU will have plenty of power to spare and there's adequate memory at a fast enough speed. Still, there's a slight penalty in terms of performance and reliability as well as a slight penalty to other running programs. In the Core Duo case, very very slight.

For example, my primary system has two WD Raptor drives in RAID 0 for speed. The controller is the Intel ICH5R southbridge on my motherboard. This is software RAID, dependent on the OS, system CPU and system RAM. I learned the hard way when I experimented with Linux on this system - older Linux kernels do not have the necessary driver data on the ICH5R in order to use the array.

Incidentally, you can hot-swap drives on an ICH5R if you're using RAID 1, so that's not a giveaway.

thoeng

2006-08-05, 00:27

tamanaco

2006-08-05, 01:35

A true hardware RAID controller will have its own CPU to control this as well as onboard RAM. It does not depend on the system CPU or the system RAM. Hence the extreme cost, it's really its own computer. Often these controllers will have large heatsinks on the CPU.
Software RAID depends on OS drivers, system CPU and system RAM. Reliability and performance were historically not as good as a result. However, with today's PC hardware, the impact is minimal and certainly doesn't warrant the extra cost for hardware RAID for a home user.

But if you can spare the bucks, hardware RAID offers best-available reliability and performance since it has dedicated processing power and memory. It's just that the difference may be small with the high-end hardware you're looking at - the CPU will have plenty of power to spare and there's adequate memory at a fast enough speed. Still, there's a slight penalty in terms of performance and reliability as well as a slight penalty to other running programs. In the Core Duo case, very very slight.

"True hardware"... maybe this is the new marketing jargon used. Any adapter in a PC card slot is still bus-based (hardware). Put the fastest CPU on that adapter and all the RAM you want and you'll still be constrained by the speed of the host computer bus, CPU and memory. You'll still need a driver in the OS to interface to it. But, I understand that this kind of adapter has more intelligence (CPU & Memory) and therefore it manages the RAID more efficiently as it takes less CPU cycles and memory from the host computer.

For example, my primary system has two WD Raptor drives in RAID 0 for speed. The controller is the Intel ICH5R southbridge on my motherboard. This is software RAID, dependent on the OS, system CPU and system RAM. I learned the hard way when I experimented with Linux on this system - older Linux kernels do not have the necessary driver data on the ICH5R in order to use the array.

Incidentally, you can hot-swap drives on an ICH5R if you're using RAID 1, so that's not a giveaway.

This is what I call "True Hardware RAID" as it is integrated in the motherboard and therefore closer to the host CPU. All or some of the RAID management is implemented at the BIOS level. The fact that you can hot-swap tells me that there is a "hardware" switch somewhere to tell the RAID management firmware in the BIOS that a drive has been removed (offline) or added (online) in a specific port.

I'm just not convinced about the "true hardware" bit. The adapter you're talking about is more "intelligent", but still has ports and chips (hardware) to manage the RAID. The adapter I mentioned is less intelligent, but it also uses ports and chips to manage the RAID. In both cases the RAID management has been push down to the hardware level (firmware on chips). My believe is that Software RAID is when "all" the management of the RAID is implemented at the OS level using drivers and OS dependent software. No RAID management software is push down on to the adapter or motherboard chips. Like I said, maybe the way is implemented now-a-days changed the way that is described.

Mark Lanctot

2006-08-05, 09:42

But, I understand that this kind of adapter has more intelligence (CPU & Memory) and therefore it manages the RAID more efficiently as it takes less CPU cycles and memory from the host computer.

That's what I mean.

Whether or not it's worth the huge price premium for a home system is debatable, but that's the gist of it.

Pale Blue Ego

2006-08-05, 13:02

Hi, as everyone else lately i have been thinking the same. Been considering NAS VS standalone PC. but now i am leaning over PC as it costs less, faster perfomance, and less effort (NAS requires hacking).

I am planning to get one of those old box as server (no idea how old is the spec perhaps PIII ? 256 RAM ?) any suggestion guys ? the server will be used only for store music and video that i would access from my laptop in the living room, and serve slimserver nothing other fancy features.

i have seen those quiet and small PC form. it seems nice and might be the solution. however i am wandering what OS to install (i have windows xp tweaked edition with minimal driver installed (only 64RAM require) i also have no exp of LINUX although it seems interesting to play with. I only have small collection of MP3 perhaps around 30GB-50GB.

my question is will this plan work ? am i better with windows of LINUX (requires me to learn) also how about monitor and keyboard? i hate to place and old looking box with monitor in my bedroom. i was planning to hide the box (forgetting the keyboard, monitor and mouse of course) somewhere in my bedroom

Thanks guys for any solution

If you don't already have an old PC, you can buy a used PC or server from places like www.retrobox.com. $100 will get you a PIII with 512 RAM. For less than $200, you can get a P4 with 1GB of RAM, and for around $300, a P4 or Xeon system with 2GB or more of RAM. (LOL, some of these Xeon systems even have 4 processors!)

If you can use a minimal Windows install, that would work fine and you already know how to use it. Linux works well also, especially on older hardware, but there's a learning curve.

Using Linux on a server like this is actually a good way to learn Linux, because you can use the system as a file server even if you don't know a lot. Most of the setup is handled during the installation. Then you can add Linux skills gradually at your own pace.

You should be able to shove the server somewhere out of the way, with no monitor or keyboard, and just transfer files through shared folders. You'll want an ethernet connection from the server to the router, though, even if the connection to the SB3 is wireless.

Good luck!

thoeng

2006-08-05, 22:40

Hi thanks for the suggestion this is one the best forum i have encounter he..he..

Anyway,the OS i preferred is windows compact ver. although LINUX definitely seems interesting (both are free download anyway) can somebody point out the pros and cons of LINUX and windows as server if its really worth it i would willing to learn it (anyway what to lose :D)

About the hardware, i was thinking the system above plus PCI wireless network so i could put the box into my closed cloth rack (for quiet factor) which is about 10 feet away from the router :D, neat eh ?

then install tightVNC to control server without even have to touch the box or necessities of monitor, mouse of keyboard hehe another VERY good thing is that my work document will be put in the server so that i could access it from my office workstation
(through internet). i found that its troublesome to bring ext HD to my workplace as i commute through bicycle he..he :D that is my scenario so far.

thoeng

2006-08-05, 22:41

oh and i forgot to tell ya what LINUX version should i consider ?

mandrake ? redhat ? suse ?? i can't tell the difference ... can anybody tell me please ?

Mark Lanctot

2006-08-05, 23:50

oh and i forgot to tell ya what LINUX version should i consider ?

mandrake ? redhat ? suse ?? i can't tell the difference ... can anybody tell me please ?

This is "religious war" territory but there are some easy ones and some harder ones. The easy ones are, well, easy, but you don't learn much. If/when you get through the hard ones you will be an expert.

One of the easiest is Ubuntu. I'm installing it right now - it's a piece of cake (well I'll get back to you once I install Java on it).

I hear one of the hardest ones is Slackware.

thoeng

2006-08-06, 00:07

well somebody has just recommend me LINUX clarke connect 3.2
been read about it and it shows some reasonably high rate of satisfaction though.
oh and about VNC i just read about Ultra VNC seems right to me
http://ultravnc.sourceforge.net/features/filetransfer.html

notanatheist

2006-08-06, 01:35

This is "religious war" territory but there are some easy ones and some harder ones.

I hear one of the hardest ones is Slackware.

Careful there. That's a religious war! Just kidding. Slackware is probably one of the fastest, and easiest to run in text mode. Install takes about 15 minutes and absolute minimal services on startup. By far my favorite distro. Personally, I use Gentoo on my desktop for package selection and easier "source" installs. I don't recommend it for everyone though. Ubuntu is quite easy and I use it on the laptop since it has a fairly decent package selection and I'm not as picky on here as my desktop machine. The fileserver is presently running ClarkConnect but could potentially end up running Slackware again. CC seems slow to me especially when running SSH into the box. It's doable for now though.

Mark Lanctot

2006-08-06, 08:28

Careful there. That's a religious war! Just kidding. Slackware is probably one of the fastest, and easiest to run in text mode. Install takes about 15 minutes and absolute minimal services on startup. By far my favorite distro. Personally, I use Gentoo on my desktop for package selection and easier "source" installs. I don't recommend it for everyone though. Ubuntu is quite easy and I use it on the laptop since it has a fairly decent package selection and I'm not as picky on here as my desktop machine. The fileserver is presently running ClarkConnect but could potentially end up running Slackware again. CC seems slow to me especially when running SSH into the box. It's doable for now though.

Perhaps my knowledge of Slackware is old, but I had heard tales of people having to compile their own kernels and installs taking ~3 days. Extreme satisfaction though, when you were finished you got exactly what you wanted and you learned a lot along the way.

I installed Ubuntu. Certainly a lot of eye candy and it's definitely not a minimal application - I went through the package manager last night and deleted packages I thought I wouldn't need. However due to dependencies ended up removing GNOME, so had to reinstall this morning.

If the PC I'm installing Ubuntu on was to be my SS server, I would strongly consider ClarkConnect. Yes, I hear 3.2 is getting bloated and slow. I'll find out as I'm reconfiguring all my old hardware this long weekend and I'll be installing CC on a P166! CC 2.x did run on it, albeit slowly.

thoeng

2006-08-06, 09:35

so IC i will try LINUX clarke connect and then install tightVNC or ultraVNC to control it later on, if i found out that is a too much for me i will change OS to windows compact version. thanks everyone for your support !! is there anything i should consider or careful when installing clarke connect ??

once again thanks everyone. its a win-win situation before i was considering NAS he..he.. now i know i could build a server for SS, file transfer server which i could access it at my office , control it without monitor, keyboard, or mouse and another win at cost solution compared to NAS solution :D.

However i still think NAS solution still offer best energy efficient and quiet factor solution.

Cheers everyone,

Mark Lanctot

2006-08-06, 10:53

so IC i will try LINUX clarke connect and then install tightVNC or ultraVNC to control it later on

No need to, ClarkConnect comes with its own web GUI, just like SlimServer.

thoeng

2006-08-07, 02:51

whoa thanks mates, as my knowledge on networking is rather low (i am trying to learn as much as possible) thats why i am leaning over linux to try something new.
so you were saying that clarkconnect should be enough for my daily (rather low i suppose) needs ??
there is a guy posting something above sayin that CC is rather slow if its run SSH. mind telling me what is SSH ?

Mark Lanctot

2006-08-07, 08:29

so you were saying that clarkconnect should be enough for my daily (rather low i suppose) needs ??

Yes - it's easy to manage, comes with SlimServer and you don't need to know Linux as everything is done with the web GUI. Note the box that runs CC can be connected directly to a monitor for an emergency console where you can do configuration, but you'll only need that to set it up and if you can't get a web GUI.

My only concern is - what version is SlimServer and how easy is it to change? Sorry to any Linux fans here, but changing things in Linux is like pulling teeth - I've been playing with Ubuntu for the past few days and installing an application from tarball took 5 hours.

there is a guy posting something above sayin that CC is rather slow if its run SSH. mind telling me what is SSH ?

Don't know about that as I never needed SSH when I was using CC. SSH is a secure remote terminal that can be run over an Internal network or over the Internet. It's for entering in commands on the command-line. I never had to do this with CC so I wouldn't know.

However there have been comments that CC 3.2 is becoming bloated and slow.

thoeng

2006-08-08, 19:57

Mark Lanctot

2006-08-08, 20:39

I see, understood. but it seems the clarke connect has everything that i need and want except one thing that i don't EXACTLY know about is its ability to be a file server accross the internet just like TightVNC or UltraVNC does. i want to be able to access my server back at home just to listen to music at office or to retrieve any files.

I believe you can get this working through VPN. CC can handle this, but VPN is pretty advanced.

See http://www.clarkconnect.com/forums/postlist.php?Cat=0&Board=vpn

TightVNC/UltraVNC are virtual desktop managers and can't transfer files, unless there's a feature I missed.

BTW I'm using SSH with my new SmoothWall (http://www.smoothwall.org) box. Works great, but yes, it's only for command-line access, so you'll only find a use for it when you know some Linux commands.

thoeng

2006-08-09, 00:33

http://ultravnc.sourceforge.net/

i hope it could work though. i never use such a application before.

notanatheist

2006-08-09, 00:47

ClarkConnect is managaed via a web interface just like a router. After the install is done you go to another computer and open your browser, go to https://0.0.0.0:81 for a login (replace 0.0.0.0 with the IP of the machine). Everything CAN be done from there. I'm somewhat of a command line junkie so like to do things via SSH such as updates, backups, and starting/stopping services. Again, all of that can be done via the web interface. If you're a newbie disregard my rants about the SSH speed as you probably won't be using it too soon. ;)

Also, because of the web interface there is no need to use VNC. If you want to access your "server" from outside your home you need to port foward or open the proper ports on your router OR setup CC as the firewall too as it'll do "internet sharing" just like a router.

tamanaco

2006-08-10, 05:12

thoeng

2006-08-11, 05:06

wowwww what a good case system .... i am drooling if only i could afford it i also don't they will send it internationally unless batch order :( also i don't believe post office here in china :(

allright i will post my current system arrangement then soon as everybody has help me

cheers folks,

roamingstudio

2006-08-12, 04:32

I was looking at NAS solutions (QNAP, Synology etc) or PC... not only to host SlimServer etc but also to host some of my photos; and source code repositories (using subversion and the like). Hacking the firmware of QNAP / Synology to add such systems can be done - but the manufacturers dont like it. Hence heading more and more towards the idea of a PC.. and the silent case (above) looks great.

1) There seem to be many different mini-itx boards these days; and I wondered if someone could be able to recommend a few useful ones to look for. Ideally with SATA (or IDE or eSATA); gb ethernet; mini-pci slot; and PCI adapter (PCI express less of an importance).

2) I would also be interested in using such solutions for a project for work - (realtime operating systems for Hardware in Loop Control).. hence the need for PCI or Mini-pci slots to allow DAQ card expansion (I realise this is way off topic for SlimDevices but resulting solution shares common aims!)

Many thanks,

tamanaco

2006-08-12, 07:16

1) There seem to be many different mini-itx boards these days; and I wondered if someone could be able to recommend a few useful ones to look for. Ideally with SATA (or IDE or eSATA); gb ethernet; mini-pci slot; and PCI adapter (PCI express less of an importance).

2) I would also be interested in using such solutions for a project for work - (realtime operating systems for Hardware in Loop Control).. hence the need for PCI or Mini-pci slots to allow DAQ card expansion (I realise this is way off topic for SlimDevices but resulting solution shares common aims!)

A good place to get started and research the many mini-itx boards in the market is http://www.mini-itx.com/

I selected the Commell LV-677 mini-itx board because it supports the next generation Intel Core Duo, can hold up to 4GB of RAM, it has a gigabit Ethernet with WOL, a PCI Express slot to support newer cards (backwards compatible), two mini PCI slots, TV-Out with HDTV build-in, a DVI option, Realtek ALC880 5.1 channel Audio, SPDIF, Compact Flash CF type-II, two SATA ports, IDE Ultra ATA 100 and many other features and internal/external ports detailed here: http://www.commell.com.tw/Product/SBC/LV-677.HTM

I have not looked recently, but this was the most feature-rich mini-ITX board that I found that met my needs. I could not find a mini-ITX board which supported the Core Duo and had build-in RAID and Gigabit Ethernet. If anyone has found one; please let me know.

EDIT:
I found one. Is not available yet and I don't know what levels of RAID it'll support. http://global.aopen.com.tw/Products/mb/i945GTt-VFA.htm

Mark Lanctot

2006-08-12, 09:22

2) I would also be interested in using such solutions for a project for work - (realtime operating systems for Hardware in Loop Control).. hence the need for PCI or Mini-pci slots to allow DAQ card expansion (I realise this is way off topic for SlimDevices but resulting solution shares common aims!)

This is my line of work as well and I'm amazed at the relatively modest requirements for controllers - the most powerful processor I've heard of is a 233 MHz PowerPC chip in a $100K compressor controller.

SBCs (single-board computers) with the PC/104 architecture seem to be very popular for industrial solutions. Google PC/104. Interestingly this form factor interconnects various modules using the old ISA bus. Don't expect PC/104 hardware to be very powerful - it typically uses AMD Geode or Intel XScale processors clocked at less than 200 MHz. But that's more than enough for the application.

sugarmonster

2006-08-13, 02:55

I'm in the middle of my own research for the same project, and I've come to similar conclusions (desktop board and server case with baby core2 duo for me, since it'll be under the stairs)

I found this for a RAID controller which looks interesting. It's driverless - it emulates a standard IDE disk - and it just aggregates the connected drives in a RAID 3 configuration to show a single volume to the OS.

http://www.xfxforce.com/web/product/listFeatures.jspa?seriesId=66

The supporting software is windows only, if that makes a difference, and if you google up the reviews you'll see that performance is pretty poor compared to standalone SATA disks, except when serving large files (i.e media)

That actually doesn't matter to me - for one thing I AM serving large media files, and for another I don't actually need to squeeze the lase mb/sec out of it. As long as it can deliver fast enough to feed a squeezebox and possibly an HD stream in the future it'll do for me.

Plus, in the UK scan are selling them for a shade over 50 quid :-)

Marc.

Andy D

2006-08-13, 08:13

The folks from A-Tech Fabrication have posted picture of their Silent Mini-Client case. Emphasis on "Client". http://www.atechfabrication.com/products/mini_client_2500.htm The Mini-Server case is not far behind and will look like this beautiful case. The client box got the WAF with just a single look.

Hush Technologies (http://www.hushtechnologies.net/) sell PC's in a similar looking case and occasionally the bare cases come up on eBay in the UK

Mark Lanctot

2006-08-13, 08:48

I found this for a RAID controller which looks interesting. It's driverless - it emulates a standard IDE disk - and it just aggregates the connected drives in a RAID 3 configuration to show a single volume to the OS.

http://www.xfxforce.com/web/product/listFeatures.jspa?seriesId=66

The supporting software is windows only, if that makes a difference, and if you google up the reviews you'll see that performance is pretty poor compared to standalone SATA disks, except when serving large files (i.e media)

That actually doesn't matter to me - for one thing I AM serving large media files, and for another I don't actually need to squeeze the lase mb/sec out of it. As long as it can deliver fast enough to feed a squeezebox and possibly an HD stream in the future it'll do for me.

Plus, in the UK scan are selling them for a shade over 50 quid :-)

Marc.

Note that many motherboards come with RAID controllers onboard that would perform similarly. They usually sell for a premium but often for less than a motherboard + RAID card would cost.

They're generally pretty good these days.

IMHO the only reason you'd go with a separate RAID card:

- your motherboard doesn't have a RAID controller

- you need SATA RAID while the motherboard only offers PATA RAID or vice-versa

- you need a RAID level the onboard RAID can't provide

- you need more drive ports than the onboard RAID can provide

- you want hardware RAID with its own dedicated CPU and memory

There's also a big drawback with RAID no one's mentioned yet. Should the controller die, you will have a series of useless drives. No conventional controller will be able to read the data on them. You need to replace the controller with another identical one. If the controller happens to be out of production (like me with my Intel ICH5R) you're out of luck. In this respect a separate RAID card is better because it's more likely to be available for a longer time than a motherboard component.

sugarmonster

2006-08-13, 14:31

Actually the reason I want a dedicated RAID card is because they usually come with management features. The box is going to run headless and unattended, and when a drive dies I need to know about it because I'm not going to be logging on to the thing every day to check it over.

Most (all?) the separate RAID cards I've seen come with a monitoring service of some sort that will email you when a drive dies, and many of them will rebuild the array automatically when you put a replacement in.

I've not seen motherboard RAID with those sort of capabilities yet - most of the desktop RAID implementations seem to be all about striping for speed (or kudos in the gaming world...).

Mark Lanctot

2006-08-13, 14:35

tommypeters

2006-08-13, 16:41

I haven't checked management functions yet, but there are some motherboards with RAID5 for four S-ATA drives.

tamanaco

2006-08-14, 07:34

I haven't checked management functions yet, but there are some motherboards with RAID5 for four S-ATA drives.

I should have clarified that my search for motherboards with build-in RAID was restricted to Mini-ITX motherboards to fit the A-Tech mini-server case. The only reason I wanted a motherboard with build-in RAID was due to Real Estate restriction inside the A-Tech case. As it has been stated before, having a separated RAID controller makes a lot of sense. In a server configuration that is only used to stream media... an inexpensive (non-intelligent) RAID controller should suffice. I would spend my money getting faster drives, cpu, bus, network adapter and more RAM. This should make up for the lack of "intelligence" in the RAID adapter. If you're using the streaming server simultaneously to do other tasks like video editing, then an expensive "intelligent" (hardware RAID) adapter might be required. In my case this silent HTPC will be used mainly as a Slimserver and having a 2.0GHz Core Duo will leave plenty CPU cycles to manage the array with the assistance of a "queasy intelligent" RAID controller. The other issue with intelligent RAID adapters is that their build-in CPUs generate heat. Heat generating components is something you try to minimize when building a silent case using a passive cooling system such as copper pipes.

tamanaco

2006-09-01, 07:34

The Commell LV-677 motherboard will not work with the RocketRAID 2310 or any PCIe x4 or x8 adapters. All the RAID controllers I have found are either x4 or x8. Most of these adapters say they're compatible with x16, but they do not work with Intel's 945GM (mobile) chipset. This chipset only supports x1 or x16. The specification for PCIe x16 state that it is backwards compatible, but in order to for it to work the chipset needs to support it. This was verified by Commell and two other motherboard manufacturers that are using the 945GM chipset in their new mini-itx Core Duo boards with PCIe slots.

Has anyone seen or heard of a PCIe x1 or x16 RAID controllers??? I have not looked for a PCI RAID adapters as I'm afraid that PCI does not have enough bandwidth to support a high performace RAID controller.

EDIT:
I forgot that the RocketRAID 2300 was an x1 adapter. I ordered one and it'll be tested on the LV-677 soon. I'm still looking for a PCIe x16 RAID adapter.

Andrew L. Weekes

2006-09-04, 01:02

There's also a big drawback with RAID no one's mentioned yet. Should the controller die, you will have a series of useless drives. No conventional controller will be able to read the data on them.

It's this reason that made me choose software RAID under Linux. The hardware controller then becomes irrelevant and you'll always be able to retrieve your data, even on a different linux box.

On an old Dell P3 600, with a Gigabit ethernet card, read / write speeds, using the XFS filesytem are always in excess of the network's demands, feeding 4 SB's and acting as a fileserver for the rest of the network.

With Linux you can have all the management features you like, it's just a question of installing / enabling the necessary tools.

For a great web GUI for easy management of a Linux box, check out Webmin.

Andy.

tamanaco

2006-09-04, 08:28

It's this reason that made me choose software RAID under Linux. The hardware controller then becomes irrelevant and you'll always be able to retrieve your data, even on a different linux box.

On an old Dell P3 600, with a Gigabit ethernet card, read / write speeds, using the XFS filesytem are always in excess of the network's demands, feeding 4 SB's and acting as a fileserver for the rest of the network.

With Linux you can have all the management features you like, it's just a question of installing / enabling the necessary tools.

For a great web GUI for easy management of a Linux box, check out Webmin.

Andy.

Andy thanks for the suggestions, but a Linux solution and software RAID won't work for me. It is a valid option that might work for other folks. My platform of choice for my media server is Windows XP Media Center. All my other 3 computers run Windows and my ripping tools, tag editors, and FLAC manipulating tools are already setup. I also believe that "full software" RAID lacks performance and takes away too many cycles from the main CPU. As I mentioned before, even though the RocketRAID 2310 does not have its own CPU it takes some of the RAID managing tasks away from the server CPU. I call this hardware-assisted-RAID. This kind of adapters implement a separate storage subsystem that help enhance the RAID performance. Software RAID is fully dependent on the server CPU to manage the disk subsystem and the RAID. This takes away CPU cycles I might need if I want to enhance the server with additional functionality in the future. Given that semi-intelligent adapters are not very expensive (the RocketRAID is only $150) replacing the adapter if it fails is not much of an issue. (you can buy two) Also moving the adapter along with the drive subsystem that make up the RAID to another computer should not be a problem. This also applies to intelligent RAID adapters (hardware-RAID) which I'm avoiding because they generate heat and are a "lot" more expensive.

I have to stick with Windows on a mini-ITX motherboard that will fit the A-Tech case. I also want it to be based on a cool running Core Duo as I want the best performance currently available to give me room for growth. My other choice is to go with a Core Duo motherboard with build-in hardware-assisted-RAID like this one http://global.aopen.com.tw/Products/mb/i945GTt-VFA.htm that is suppose to hit the market soon But, like the intelligent hardware RAID adapter, they're expensive and a lot more inconvenient to replace. What I would really like is to find (if it exist) is a PCIe x1 or x16 semi-intelligent (preferred) or intelligent RAID adapter to go with the feature rich mini-ITX LV-677 motherboard.

It never fails... once you put the "real" components together... something doesn't work. Good luck to those relying on written specs.

Andrew L. Weekes

2006-09-04, 14:02

I also believe that "full software" RAID lacks performance and takes away too many cycles from the main CPU.

It obviously does use CPU cycles, but whether it's 'too many' depends on the use. In my case there's plenty available on an old P3 with a 600MHz CPU and it works perfectly as a file server, ftp server, http server, slimserver (feeding 4 SB's), security camera etc.

Disk writes aren't as fast as a full hardware solution, but that's irrelevant as I don't need that speed for this application.

It's obviously not an option for MCE though.

Having run an XP Pro solution (on a 1.8GHz CPU) for some months (before biting the bullet and learning some Linux stuff) I can say that in my case performance of the Linux box for slimserver is dramatically better and infinitely more stable. That said, it's not trying to be a multi-purpose media centre, it just lives in my garage, serving files to devices that need them.

If you wan't MCE's other features it's obviously a good choice, if you don't it would be a waste, in my view. Again, it depends on the whole system setup, I still rip and process files on an XP desktop, not the Linux system, it sounds like you are after a wider gamut of uses, I assume it will act a a full media centre on your TV etc.?

Andy.

tamanaco

2006-09-04, 19:43

It obviously does use CPU cycles, but whether it's 'too many' depends on the use. In my case there's plenty available on an old P3 with a 600MHz CPU and it works perfectly as a file server, ftp server, http server, slimserver (feeding 4 SB's), security camera etc.

Disk writes aren't as fast as a full hardware solution, but that's irrelevant as I don't need that speed for this application.

It's obviously not an option for MCE though.

Having run an XP Pro solution (on a 1.8GHz CPU) for some months (before biting the bullet and learning some Linux stuff) I can say that in my case performance of the Linux box for slimserver is dramatically better and infinitely more stable. That said, it's not trying to be a multi-purpose media centre, it just lives in my garage, serving files to devices that need them.

If you wan't MCE's other features it's obviously a good choice, if you don't it would be a waste, in my view. Again, it depends on the whole system setup, I still rip and process files on an XP desktop, not the Linux system, it sounds like you are after a wider gamut of uses, I assume it will act a a full media centre on your TV etc.?

Andy.

Just curious... what RAID level are you using on your Linux box... 0,1 or 5? I plan to use 4 drives in RAID 5 configuration. (3 disks array with one hot spare)

Initially, I will fine tune this server to be stand-alone Slimserver. But, soon after I stabilize the Slimserver on this platform and rip all my existing CDs to FLAC, I will add other media capabilities.

Andrew L. Weekes

2006-09-09, 02:23

Just curious... what RAID level are you using on your Linux box... 0,1 or 5?

I'm using Raid 5 on 3 disks currently (3x200Gb), with XFS as a filesystem. Mine's slightly unusual in that to save money (drives weren't as cheap when I built it as they are now) I have 1x250Gb drive + 2x 200Gb drives. The 250Gb one is partitioned 50 / 200Gb, such that the 3 200Gb portions make up the Raid 5 array, with 50Gb for boot / OS etc.

If I were doing it now, I'd add another disc or two - prices have dropped since I built that PC. The discs are also standard IDE, not SATA, at the time it was built they were the least cost option and I had spare IDE controller cards.

One issue with s/w Raid is each drive must be on a seperate controller for optimum performance (i.e for each standard IDE interface only one drive can be on each cable). This makes SATA a better choice for this as each drive is by default (I believe) on it's own dedicated interface.

Andy.

tamanaco

2006-09-09, 09:12

One issue with s/w Raid is each drive must be on a seperate controller for optimum performance (i.e for each standard IDE interface only one drive can be on each cable). This makes SATA a better choice for this as each drive is by default (I believe) on it's own dedicated interface.

Andy.

I see... At one point someone suggested that I use a SATA port multiplier like this one http://www.cooldrives.com/cosapomubrso.html and software RAID, but I was afraid of performance and support nightmares. I'm sticking with a not so intelligent RAID adapter on a high performance feature rich mini-itx board. I also want a RAID controller without a heat generating CPU. From now on I will call this kind of RAID implementation with a dumb controller -> "hardware-assisted" RAID <-… for lack of a better description. These adapters have several integrated SATA ports and usually come bundled with cables and RAID managing software. This makes the implementation of RAID 5 and RAID support much easier. When a drive fails one gets visual feedback via LEDs and the managing software can be configure to notify you via email. In my case, I can only use "one" PCIe controller with several SATA ports as these mini-itx motherboards usually come with just "one" PCIe slot. I have not considered implementing the RAID using the PCI slots as I believe that plain PCI does not provide enough throughput. PCIe x1 provides 256MB of bandwidth while PCI provides 132MB (Theoretically). Not to mention PCIe x4, x8 or x16 which have greater bandwidth. I have not come across a PCI RAID adapter either.

During my "forward" search for a PCIe x1 and x16 RAID adapters, I did not look back at High Point. After reading the specs on so many adapters I forgot that the RocketRAID 2300 was an x1 adapter. I just ordered one it will be tested on the LV-677

tamanaco

2006-09-30, 07:18

During my "forward" search for a PCIe x1 and x16 RAID adapters, I did not look back at High Point. After reading the specs on so many adapters I forgot that the RocketRAID 2300 was an x1 adapter. I just ordered one it will be tested on the LV-677

UPDATE: The PCIe x1 RocketRAID 2300 also failed to work with the LV-677, but works on other motherboards. The tech support folks for the LV-677 said that they'll look into this issue, but God only knows how long this is going to take. In the meantime, my search for a feature-rich Mini-ITX motherboard that supports a PCIe RAID adapter resumes. I'm looking for a Mini-ITX or possibly a picoBTX board that supports the Intel Core Duo, has gigabit Ethernet, at least one PCIe slot that natively supports x4 or x8, S/PDIF out and a built-in S-video port.

Someone suggested the new Intel pBTX DG965PC, but it does not have a S-Video port. Btw, is there such thing as a VGA to S-Video converter cable or box? Nothing too fancy. I'd appreciate any suggestions you might have.

Thanks...