Celeron 1000mhz as file server???

[apache_lives]

Intel Celeron 667/66 @ 1.0ghz (no extra vcore)
512mb PC133 SDR Ram
Intel 815 Motherboard (PCPartner C960)
RAID or STANDARD?
1000MBPS OR 100MBPS?

First of all - is it so rare to get a Celeron 667 to reach 1000mhz WITHOUT ANY EXTRA VCORE??? and for my main qestion - would that system be any good as a file server? (for file storage using RAID 0 maybe... or atleast to hold 100gb+ of data)? What performance diffrence would there be with that system compared with a pentium4? Also, what would be a better processor to do the job - a Celeron 667 @ 1000 (1ghz / 100mhz FSB / 128k Cache) or a Pentium 3 600mhz EB (600mhz / 133mhz FSB / 256k Cache) or any other pentium2??? (will there be any improvments over each other?) I will be getting Gigabit ethernet soon also - would the P3's extra FSB and cache be better over the celeron? Is Raid worth it? and Is Gigabit lan worth it? Thankyou in advance.

 

[Crashman]

File server? I'd pass on the RAID0 and use the Celeron. Really any processor should do the job.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[dhlucke]

You're gonna need at least a cluster of eight 3Ghz machines to pull that off.

</font color=red><i><font color=red>GOD</font color=red> <font color=blue>BLESS </font color=blue><font color=red>AMERICA

 

[apache_lives]

Oh sorry - forgot to add - its for a personal file storage setup (to backup data, software, movies, anime and VCD's (i hate installing things with CD's) and i aint want to spend too much on it...

So the celeron 1000mhz is better for it then a pentium3 600mhz EB (would the extra cache and higher FSB help any over the celeron with the higher clock speed?)

So avoid raid 0? ok... another question - should i use the onboard ATA66 IDE channels or buy an PCI IDE Card to do the job? Does it matter if its limited at ATA66 or is that sufficent for netowork transfers? and will my BIOS support ~200gb HDD's?

 

[darko21]

I always thought raid0 was most usefull with a server as opposed to a desktop worksation. Clearly if building a cheap sever raid0 is out but servers dont usually need highend cpu's so raid0 is an option even on a budget server. at least that's what I thought.

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.

 

[Crashman]

It really depends on what you want to do with the server. If you're on a 10/100 line a single drive is already faster than the line. If you're on a small network and 1000gb, the drives in the server still don't need to be faster than the drives they serve. If you're serving over the web, most people can't buy a line fast enough to exceed the speed of a single drive. So as I see it, the only time you need RAID0 or better is when you have both an ultra-high-speed connnection AND multiple PC's drawing from the same array at once.

So I automatically assume the last one probably isn't the case when he refers to the other hardware he's using. After all, RAID has overhead. And then there's the problem of reliability, if he needed RAID shouldn't it be RAID5?

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[darko21]

I guess we don't know the particulars like chuck size or weather most files will be 4kb html files oe huge vid files but clearly we agree his cpu is not the bottle neck. but companies or people in the know used raid0 with cheap severs before celeron 1000 mgz power was around.. I'm sure on udma66 prolly on scis 10000 rpm drives so must have been a reason. lower lat if it's not in mem it's got to be found and sucked from the harddrive.

as to if he needs raid should it not be raid5..

good point but raid5 is expensive especialy if using a celeron 1000 maybe you meant raid1 mirroring. I'll agree if the data is mission critical avoid raid0 (unless backing up regular) and go raid1 mirroring. But personaly if I wanted a personal server and had 2 drives and a crappy old cel 1000 i'd use raid0 for performance and back up any mission critical data, way before raid1 (plus raid0 gets more storage 40 + 40 = 80) raid1 40 + 40 = 40 and clearly before raid5 and all the drives needed on a cheap old celeron.

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.

 

[Crashman]

Actually I was trying to say that RAID0 isn't a great idea for a file server simply because of security. I know that RAID5 is out of the range of people considering such a cheap server. But RAID0+1 also has high cost (4 drives or more). So I'd just do multiple drives with backup coppies of the most important files. Of course that's a bit slower, but it's still fast enough to keep a 10/100 pipe full.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>