View Full Version : What's the most important component?
I'm on the verge of building myself a large(ish)(0.5TB) storage device (not sure whether to call it a Server or NAS?) and was wondering what you guys thought was the more important component in the kit? Would it be the Hard Drives in terms of size, speed, quantity, or would it be the cooling of such a piece of equipment. Should one concentrate on the SW or is the Raid controller numero uno? Where would the size of the processor or the amount of RAM come in the Top Ten?
I know there is no right/wrong answer, but I thought it was worth asking :0).
disclaimer - I am an employee of DataCore
I used our product SANmelody which is diskserver software to turn an existing PC into an iSCSI SAN. It uses thin provisioning to allocate physical storage as it is required, uses snapshot to create incrememntal backups of my collection, and uses a portion of the system memory to greatly speed up disk I/O access.
I use the software to create a "virtual" disk 2TB in size which is mapped to any other PC on my network through the iSCSI protocol (even though I only had about 300GB at the time). In my case, I mapped the volume to itself in kind of a loop back mode, and installed SS on the same PC.
As I ripped more of my collection, I could add additional physical storage to the pool as it was required. This allowed me to create a library based on a 2TB disk and keep adding disks without having to do any aggregation, migration, or extensions.
I currently have a mishmash of different brand disks, sizes, speeds, even some SATA, SATAII and IDE - all working perfectly together. This storage server now has about 2.1TB serving my music and video storage needs.
Needless to say, I recommend concentrating on software and use it to leverage the hardware as best you can. :)
tyler_durden
2006-11-21, 12:37
Whew!
OK, for the rest of us with normal sized libraries and limited funds to support the project, a back-up of the library is important. You can do that with RAID, or just with a couple HDDs and copy one to the other periodically.
RAID and SATA drives are OK, but who needs the extra complexity and/or expense? Put one HDD in the server. Put the backup HDD in an external drive box with a USB2 or firewire port. Start with a couple 250 GB drives (they'll hold about 700 CDs ripped to FLAC each). When you need to expand storage to accomodate a growing library, the price of HDDs is always dropping, so buy a 500 GB drive for backup for what you paid for a 250 GB drive 6 months ago, and put the old backup drive into the server.
Having an external back-up drive is very useful- if you don't feel any media conglomerate induced guilt about file sharing, you can take it to parties, loan it to friends, etc. If you do feel such guilt, it is still handy to have it in a separate drive so that you can store it in a different place (your office?), away from the server. If your house burns down and takes the server with it, RAID disks inside the server aren't going to help you get your music back.
The HDDs don't have to be high performance and don't require big buffers. Get the cheapest drives available that match your current and maybe 6 months- 1 year future capacity requirements. 5400 RPM? No problem. 2MB buffer? No problem. 14 ms seek time? No problem.
I don't know about the database size so I can't tell you how much memory you should use. My server has 512 MB ram and it works fine for my 600+ CD collection. I don't think a fast processor is required, so a $150 motherboard/cpu combo with on-board graphics and audio should do the job.
Use Linux. You don't want suffer the embarassment of having to reboot the server in the middle of demoing the system to friends...
TD
OK, for the rest of us with normal sized libraries and limited funds to support the project, a back-up of the library is important. You can do that with RAID, or just with a couple HDDs and copy one to the other periodically.
OK, granted I am using some of the enterprise level software, but even so it doesn't need to break the bank. Using a retired x86 server with NAS software is all it really takes. DataCore has a Lite version too that essentially accomplishes the same thing: having a physical volume seperated across a network onto which you can create a mirror or simply to a file copy for backup purposes.
The advantage over a direct attach disk is that you can do the same thing with any other PC in your house, or serve video and movies to media extender, PVR etc.
RAID and SATA drives are OK, but who needs the extra complexity and/or expense? Put one HDD in the server. Put the backup HDD in an external drive box with a USB2 or firewire port. Start with a couple 250 GB drives (they'll hold about 700 CDs ripped to FLAC each). When you need to expand storage to accomodate a growing library, the price of HDDs is always dropping, so buy a 500 GB drive for backup for what you paid for a 250 GB drive 6 months ago, and put the old backup drive into the server.
Agree about RAID.
Disagree about SATA - it is simply an interface format - no additional complexity involved. In fact, they hit the pricing sweetspot when it comes to high capacity drives. And most of the external USB or FW cages take SATA drives.
Agree about disk prices dropping - the pain in the butt is always having to migrate data.
Having an external back-up drive is very useful- if you don't feel any media conglomerate induced guilt about file sharing, you can take it to parties, loan it to friends, etc. If you do feel such guilt, it is still handy to have it in a separate drive so that you can store it in a different place (your office?), away from the server. If your house burns down and takes the server with it, RAID disks inside the server aren't going to help you get your music back.
Agree with this - very useful to have a copy for plug 'n play (I took mine home for Christmas where it replaced the single Perry Como's Christmas CD which was on perpetual repeat...)
A bit extreme on the example of the house though, hey? ;)
Use Linux. You don't want suffer the embarassment of having to reboot the server in the middle of demoing the system to friends...
TD
hmmm....I guess I won't go here. Discussing dogma on threads never seems to work out well...
A lot of it depends on your skills and where the server is going to be placed plus what else you are expecting it to do.
If it's just to server your music needs then a relatively modest PC with SATA running Linux is an inexpensive way to do it without any software licensing worries. If you go for a motherboard with integrated graphics then that's one less thing to worry about and generate heat in the case.
I've gone for the simple approach and have two 300Gb SATA disks mounted as separate file systems and just rsync the two each night. Nothing wrong with RAID but obviously if you're using motherboard RAID and the motherboard dies then you'll probably need to get another one the same to be able to access your array which can be a real pain.
If it's a new CPU then anything you can buy will be sufficient. I would get the cheapest/slowest as at least the cooling & power requirements won't be so great (presuming you don't want to go to the expense of core2duo for a music server!)
I've gone for minimal cooling in mine purely as it's in a cupboard and I don't want to be able to hear it
I started a year ago with an old PIII-700 compaq deskpro, put in a 500W power supply, and purchased a Silicon Image 4x SATA host adapter (cheap and no-so-fast one) with 3 x 200GB Samsung SATA drives. Din't have backup machine/drive at the moment, so I used RAID-5 for some protection at least. This gave me around 360GB of storage.
In 4 to 6 month I added another 200GB drive to RAID (painful process, since the adapter raid driver didn't allow for dynamic adds - had to backup and recover the whole collection:( )
About 2 month ago I decided it was time for more serious storage - I'm now at ~1800 FLAC albums; and CPU - since the 6.5 worked kind of slow on the old PIII machine. Also, I had (and still have) plans on using Inguz DRC plugin, which need some CPU cycles.
So I bought a new PC, AMD3000, with built-in SATA and 3 x 400GB drives. I again put them into RAID, gaining 745GB of storage. Only this time I used 2003 server built-in RAID, hoping next time I add drive it will do so on the fly. This configuration will serve me for some time - up to 6 physical drives.
The old PC - I made it available for general use at home:). It has a spanned volume of little less then 800GB (the 4 200G drives, remember?), which is used for backup of the main server audio collection.
MelonMonkey
2006-11-26, 20:16
Least trouble whichever way you slice it:
Mac mini (older or current model) with an external HD enclosure (you can get one of the models styled to look like the mini to sit under it).
At least 90% of the Slimserver problems I see in these forums are related to Windows installations.
Linux is a great option, but it's going to be a lot more trouble to set up than the Mac. And if you have to ask the questions at the top of this thread, you don't want to be setting up a Linux system.
I'm on the verge of building myself a large(ish)(0.5TB) storage device (not sure whether to call it a Server or NAS?) and was wondering what you guys thought was the more important component in the kit? Would it be the Hard Drives in terms of size, speed, quantity, or would it be the cooling of such a piece of equipment. Should one concentrate on the SW or is the Raid controller numero uno? Where would the size of the processor or the amount of RAM come in the Top Ten?
I know there is no right/wrong answer, but I thought it was worth asking :0).
If you'll be running SlimServer on the device then it's not an NAS. I'd just call it a server. If it's just used for file storage then I'd call it a file server.
For just 0.5TB you can pretty much knock that off with a single 500GB disk drive (actually about 465GB). To run SlimServer, even feeding several Squeezeboxes and doing transcoding, you don't need much CPU power. RAM requirements will be a function of the duties you assign to the box, plus the operating system.
You won't need the speed of SCSI disks, so standard 7200RPM SATA disks are pretty much the standard these days. No sense in buying PATA drives, and I doubt slower (cheaper, cooler) 5400RPM drives are even available in large capacities. Cooling is critical to disk life, and the larger drives of today run a little warm due to the large mass (number of platters), but a system with just one or two drives should be easy to keep cool, and wont' require something that sounds like a 747.
If you want RAID and money is a concern, you can either do it in software, or use the onboard RAID controllers on many motherboards to do RAID 1 (mirroring two disks). I don't think I'd bother with RAID until you get into at least four disk drives, then use RAID 5.
Tough to put a priority on any one component, but if I were to choose, I think it would be the same as for any pc or server I build - a stable motherboard with a good chipset. This will take a bit of research, but they're not hard to find. Select a CPU (generally based on budget, or perhaps energy concerns) and then find a good motherboard for that platform. Get a good case with adequate ventilation and get a very high quality power supply.
At least 90% of the Slimserver problems I see in these forums are related to Windows installations.
I'd say this is due to two factors:
Well over 90% of Slim Devices' customers are running SlimServer on Windows.
Windows support by the development team is an afterthought. I'd be willing to bet, though, that Logitech's acquisition of the company is going to fix that attitude pretty quickly.
MelonMonkey
2006-11-27, 09:06
Windows support by the development team is an afterthought. I'd be willing to bet, though, that Logitech's acquisition of the company is going to fix that attitude pretty quickly.
It would make far more sense for Logitech to release their own server, powered by Linux, than to try and make something to install in Windows in a more robust fashion.
Installing an always-on server application on a Windows machine is not something your typical consumer will want to tackle. This won't help to increase the Slim Devices market share. A box like the Olive Musica/Opus will. You plug it in, you send your music to it (or connect an external drive) and your Squeezeboxes stream from it. Done and no brainer. Far wider market appeal and a chance for Slim/Logitech to actually make money from the server software. Slim has been giving away an enormous amount of potential revenue by not offering their own server device.
The company's value is/was in the software, that's why Logitech bought them. Time to start capitalizing on that.
There's also nothing Logitech or Slim can do to remove the problems associated with Windows itself. It's just not a suitable environment for this kind of software. I consider myself an advanced Windows user and have been building/running and administering Windows boxes since 1994 - I wouldn't trust one as a primary Slim box. It's also more expensive to build a Windows box than it is to build an equivalent Linux machine or simply buy a premade Mac.
Windows is fine for a hands-on computer (ie. a workstation), but ideally you want something stripped down for sevrer use. Mac OS seems like a bit of overkill too, but its easy to strip down and the machines come with everything you need already (plus great form factors).
Now, all arguments and debates aside, the initial statement still stands. For the most simple and no-brainer server installation at this time, there simply is no better solution than a Mac mini. Not as slick or simple as a dedicated device, but far simpler than any Linux or Windows setup to both install and maintain.
I'm on the verge of building myself a large(ish)(0.5TB) storage device (not sure whether to call it a Server or NAS?) and was wondering what you guys thought was the more important component in the kit? Would it be the Hard Drives in terms of size, speed, quantity, or would it be the cooling of such a piece of equipment. Should one concentrate on the SW or is the Raid controller numero uno? Where would the size of the processor or the amount of RAM come in the Top Ten?
I know there is no right/wrong answer, but I thought it was worth asking :0).
Whatever you choose, think of expandability. Today's hardware is more than capable to support modest needs of slimserver procssing and audio streaming. I have a Pentium 4 3GHz dualcore and it is an overkill for my 2TB server. I was able to run slimserver on PPC 266 MHz processor...
You are planning 0.5TB server, in your situation, I would pay most of the attention to configuration. 0.5TB sems like a lot, but very soon you would want to add. I would (and did for myslef) choose RAID/LVM setup to protect against disk failure (RAID5) and LVM if I need to grow my partitions using another disk. I would also pay attention to a backup, and RAID is not a substitute for it, RAID devices do fail - motherboards, controllers... when you think of backup that's when a simple NAS device like Linkstation (Kurobox HG is even better) comes in handy.
In my opinion, if you select a server solution that is PC (as opposed to NAS) based, hardware is secondry, configuration is more important.
disclaimer - I am an employee of DataCore
I used our product SANmelody which is diskserver software to turn an existing PC into an iSCSI SAN. It uses thin provisioning to allocate physical storage as it is required, uses snapshot to create incrememntal backups of my collection, and uses a portion of the system memory to greatly speed up disk I/O access.
I use the software to create a "virtual" disk 2TB in size which is mapped to any other PC on my network through the iSCSI protocol (even though I only had about 300GB at the time). In my case, I mapped the volume to itself in kind of a loop back mode, and installed SS on the same PC.
As I ripped more of my collection, I could add additional physical storage to the pool as it was required. This allowed me to create a library based on a 2TB disk and keep adding disks without having to do any aggregation, migration, or extensions.
I currently have a mishmash of different brand disks, sizes, speeds, even some SATA, SATAII and IDE - all working perfectly together. This storage server now has about 2.1TB serving my music and video storage needs.
Needless to say, I recommend concentrating on software and use it to leverage the hardware as best you can. :)
There is an Open Source alternative to iSCSI - AoE.
You can export unformatted partitions over Ethernet and local machine sees a raw drive that can be formatted. Just for a test, I have exported NTFS partition over a wireless network from Slack Linux and formatted as a local drive on XP box! Of course it was slow, this should be build over Gigabyte network.
This free technology will make us rethink how to build fileservers, especially for home use.
Link for a live CD http://www.lbserver.org/aoe/
I would (and did for myslef) choose RAID/LVM setup to protect against disk failure (RAID5) and LVM if I need to grow my partitions using another disk.
RAID is great when used properly and is vital in many data centres where systems are professionally supervised and disk problems have to be solved with zero downtime by hot-swapping disks. However, too many casual users use it and then miss the vital task of continuously monitoring the disks to know when one has failed. If you are not willing to do the monitoring I would argue against RAID (for fault prevention). You can still use RAID for increased storage size if you are willing to take the increased risk of disk failure.
I agree that it is nice way to grow the disk space but there are other methods of doing almost the same thing that will not leave the entire disk array useless in case one disk fails (assuming you use simple striping).
For my part, I decided against RAID. Currently I have a 500GB disk and when that is full I will add second drive and mount it within the same structure. Backups are taken on an external USB drive and kept off-site.
The company's value is/was in the software, that's why Logitech bought them. Time to start capitalizing on that.
If Logitech just wanted slimserver they could have downloaded the source like the rest of us - no need to buy the company. What they bought was the engineering team install base/reputation.
I consider myself an advanced Windows user and have been building/running and administering Windows boxes since 1994 - I wouldn't trust one as a primary Slim box.
Then you're doing something wrong. I (and many other people I'm sure) have no problems running SS on a simple homemade XP box. I don't run Windows on my servers at work for a number of reasons, but it works just fine in a home environment.
It's also more expensive to build a Windows box than it is to build an equivalent Linux machine or simply buy a premade Mac.
Huh? Linux maybe, seeing as you can typically get away with lower hardware specs and of course don't need to buy a Windows license. But a Mac? It may be cuter, it may be easier to admin (the jury's out on that IMHO) but it sure ain't cheaper.
Now, all arguments and debates aside, the initial statement still stands. For the most simple and no-brainer server installation at this time, there simply is no better solution than a Mac mini.
Well, you and I disagree. I think a mini is a fundamentally daft machine to use as a fileserver seeing as it (a) has next to no disc space and (b) costs $700. According to the Apple store I'd need to spend basically $1000 for a Mini with 500GB of external storage. Adding any more storage is also expensive seeing as it's all external. You end up with a stack of boxes and a tangle of power and firewire cables. A similar PC (either home build or a cheap Dell box) would cost about half that, and come in a nice all-in-one box with just a power and network connection. More storage can be added simply with (cheap) internal drives.
Don't get me wrong, the mini is a great box and has it's uses, but I wouldn't recommend it as a fileserver. But that's the beauty of opinions, everyone has one :)
If you are not willing to do the monitoring I would argue against RAID (for fault prevention). You can still use RAID for increased storage size if you are willing to take the increased risk of disk failure.
I agree that it is nice way to grow the disk space but there are other methods of doing almost the same thing that will not leave the entire disk array useless in case one disk fails (assuming you use simple striping).
If you use RAID you have to monitor. I have simple deamon running that will email if there is a disk degradation, it is part of raid tools on Linux, Win should have something similiar. Please keep in mind, that 1 faulty disk in RAID5 does not fail the wholle array, that's the whole point of RAID (Redundand Array of Inexpensive Disk), emphasis on redundand. Stripping disk as Raid0 is a receipe for disaster. For increased storage size you should use LVM - Logical Volume Management.
MelonMonkey
2006-11-27, 12:00
You can buy a complete Mac mini used for $400. A new Solo model is $599 directly from Apple, shipping included without any discounts.
Find me an equivalent system with a full version of Windows XP Pro for the same price. Last I checked, the Acer and other small systems were more expensive.
A full version of XP costs over $250. Most people will discount the price of Windows when pricing out this kind of system, but that's not really fair.
An external drive enclosure is about $15-80 depending on what you get. And a 750GB drive is the same price regardless of what system you'll be using it with.
After initially booting the Mac, you can connect the empty drive. it will prompt you for formatting. Once that's done you can insert a USB stick or download Slimserver and install that in a few seconds.
After changing one or two prefs items, it's now ready for use with the current iTunes library. Load all your music into iTunes and you can start listening as soon as you connect a Squeezebox to the network.
I make recommendations carefully, not because I'm a zealot for one platform versus another. For this type of system, the mini is more than suitable. Dare I say it's ideal.
If I wanted to completely roll my own polished solution, I would do it a bit differently. I would likely buy a current model Rotel DVD player, gut it, install a miniITX, some flash ram for booting and two 750GB drives for storage. Then I'd slap in an LCD to line up with the Rotel's window, an IR sensor connected internally with USB, gut a USB game controller, attach it to the buttons on the Rotel case and using some custom software, the IR and buttons would trigger scripts to control the Slimserver via CLI.
For now Slimsever just got installed on the server I'm already using for running bug tracking software, development databases and source management for my day to day work. It took about a minute or two to install SS and another minute to connect the external music library I have already been using for the past few years.
Huh? Linux maybe, seeing as you can typically get away with lower hardware specs and of course don't need to buy a Windows license. But a Mac? It may be cuter, it may be easier to admin (the jury's out on that IMHO) but it sure ain't cheaper.
Just from curiosity, what is the additional $ cost to have software RAID and LVM tools on XP? My imaginary starting point would be Home XP.
I'm running Linux for a while now and always wondered if this cost is significant (legit software only, please)
You can buy a complete Mac mini used for $400. A new Solo model is $599 directly from Apple, shipping included without any discounts.
Used? Used PC hardware is basically free, I know I have a closet full and so do most people who tinker with this stuff. Let's restrict ourselves to retail. But you're right, it's $600 not $700 for the basic model, mea culpa.
Find me an equivalent system with a full version of Windows XP Pro for the same price. Last I checked, the Acer and other small systems were more expensive.
Who said small? As I mentioned, I consider small a bad thing for a fileserver as it limits expandability - a key requirement for the role. Take your pick of cheap PC manufacturers, Dell is the obvious one. I can easily spec out a machine with similar specs but a much larger disc (250GB) for well under $500. Oh and XP Pro is an option, but really not needed. The Dell machines I mentioned come with Home or WMC - both perfectly good for the job.
A full version of XP costs over $250. Most people will discount the price of Windows when pricing out this kind of system, but that's not really fair.
And how much is OSX? The answer is that because it's bundled with the machine, it doesn't matter. If you're building your own you can get OEM XP Pro for around $100, if you're buying prebuilt it's on the disc.
An external drive enclosure is about $15-80 depending on what you get. And a 750GB drive is the same price regardless of what system you'll be using it with.
A decent USB2 SATA enclosure is at least $40 (and I have one, and I'm not sure I'd trust my data to it). The cheapest Firewire SATA enclosure I can see is closer to $80. Of course the bare disk costs the same, but adding $50-80 or so PER DRIVE is a pain, plus the wiring and PSUs make the whole thing a mess. Tell me again why we want a small, neat server just to have a stack of ugly discs piled up on top of it? My current server has 4 drives in it...so not having to have them external saved me ~$200 as well as allowing me to have a single easy to handle box sitting on the floor out of the way. This is nothing about the fact that it's a Mac, it's about the form factor.
After initially booting the Mac, you can connect the empty drive. it will prompt you for formatting. Once that's done you can insert a USB stick or download Slimserver and install that in a few seconds.
After changing one or two prefs items, it's now ready for use with the current iTunes library. Load all your music into iTunes and you can start listening as soon as you connect a Squeezebox to the network.
Great. Just like with XP. Or Linux (save the iTunes bit). I doubt it's much harder with FreeBSD. Your point?
I make recommendations carefully, not because I'm a zealot for one platform versus another. For this type of system, the mini is more than suitable. Dare I say it's ideal.
I never accused you of being a zealot, I think you read too much into my comment. The Mac Mini is just pretty much the antithesis of what I consider a server to be. You disagree, which is fine. I'm just stating my opinion.
If I wanted to completely roll my own polished solution, I would do it a bit differently. I would likely buy a current model Rotel DVD player, gut it, install a miniITX, some flash ram for booting and two 750GB drives for storage. Then I'd slap in an LCD to line up with the Rotel's window, an IR sensor connected internally with USB, gut a USB game controller, attach it to the buttons on the Rotel case and using some custom software, the IR and buttons would trigger scripts to control the Slimserver via CLI.
Or you could just buy one of the many prebuilt HTPC cases which already come with VFDs, remotes, etc and then pair it with an existing IR control app like Girder. Makes life a lot easier. Seriously, if you're trying to dazzle me with your mad skillz, don't.
For now Slimsever just got installed on the server I'm already using for running bug tracking software, development databases and source management for my day to day work. It took about a minute or two to install SS and another minute to connect the external music library I have already been using for the past few years.
Likewise. I think we've established that Slimserver is easy to install, but I don't quite get your point as to why the fact that it's running on a Mac Mini makes any difference.
Just from curiosity, what is the additional $ cost to have software RAID and LVM tools on XP? My imaginary starting point would be Home XP.
I'm running Linux for a while now and always wondered if this cost is significant (legit software only, please)
No idea, I don't use either. I do know that if you use NTFS you can use dynamic volumes to do a lot of what you probably want, like combining multiple physical disks into one volume out of the box. Software RAID is not an area I've dabbled in. I'd stick with Linux (which I'd use myself over XP except that my server also runs some Windows-only apps).
I wouldn't argue against a Mac Mini as a dedicated SlimServer platform, but certainly not as a file server. It's small, unobtrusive, relatively inexpensive, and has enough CPU power to run SlimServer adequately. But to make it practical your music library needs to fit on one or two large hard disks.
On the other hand, I doubt very much that it's any more stable than SlimServer running on a Windows box. A comparable Windows or Linux machine can generally be built or purchased for less than an Apple, and using internal drives in a larger chassis will be both cheaper and more expandable. You also have more options with respect to CPU power - you can go small and low power, or go big for faster scan times and better ui responsiveness.
No idea, I don't use either. I do know that if you use NTFS you can use dynamic volumes to do a lot of what you probably want, like combining multiple physical disks into one volume out of the box. Software RAID is not an area I've dabbled in. I'd stick with Linux (which I'd use myself over XP except that my server also runs some Windows-only apps).
I've searched the net a little bit and it looks like you can do software RAID5 in XP PRO after hacking the registry!
http://members.home.nl/rvandesanden/raid3.html
No wonder most people go with hardware controllers.
MelonMonkey
2006-12-01, 12:24
Radish, find me an HTPC system or case alone that looks as nice as a current model Rotel component. If I were to build that ideal it's so it would look as killer as an Olive system.
When I suggested the Mac mini I was indeed suggesting a dedicated Slimserver device. Plennty of people have been looking for SMALL so I suggested small. It's cheaper than building an ITX system and has better performance on top of that.
Certainly a Dell system is fairly cheap. Cheaper than most people can build a system themselves. But you have to reformat it completely when you get it just to make sure you're not stuck with a system that's easily 5 times slower than it should be thanks to all the malware they pre-install for you.
You think running Slimserver on Windows is more stable than on Linux or Mac OS? Let's say Slimserver is exactly as stable on every platform (that's a big IF, but whetever). Just running those three systems alone now. If you want to be connected to the Internet Windows will require regular patching and prompts you in a very obtrusive way. There's a lot of setup on the Windows system - not more that initial setup for Linux, but far more than on any Mac.
I have two PC-based servers as well. One of them built from spares that I had lying around and one built as a dedicated TV system to run SageTV. The worst part of the SageTV system is Windows.
I'm sure we agree on how to build a big file server or web server from a hardware perspective, maybe not software. Windows would never find its way onto any such system from my perspective.
But I still stick by my recommendation that the Mini is a fine dedicated Slimserver. And why would ther be a huge confusion of cables? You only need one external drive enclosure, whether it be for 1, 4 or 10 drives. And for some people, they could get away with the mini alone. The same people who are looking to build a miniITX with a 2.5" drive. The same people who are looking for low power systems that can stay on 24 hours/day. The same people who don't have an otherwise empty basement in which to slap a couple of racks like I have here.
I'd even go so far as to recommend using an newer iMac as a dedicated web UI coupled with a touch screen overlay if someone had the inclination and the cash to spend on something like that. ;) I suppose it isn't a Sooloos, but it's quite a bit cheaper.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.12 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.