FWIW... My fans are relatively loud, too.

I just ordered some new fans, I will tell you if they are much more silently 

Did any of you experience some network issues with this build? It happened already twice to me, I start a big file transfer in the morning and when I come home in the evening I got an error in Win7 telling me it can't reach the share (smb)... If open the share again, everything is fine...

I just ordered some new fans, I will tell you if they are much more silently 

Did any of you experience some network issues with this build? It happened already twice to me, I start a big file transfer in the morning and when I come home in the evening I got an error in Win7 telling me it can't reach the share (smb)... If open the share again, everything is fine...

 

I'm definitely surprised at the noise issue -- I wonder if Lian-Li had a bad batch of fans.    Did you order Noctua's?  [pricey, but absolutely QUIET  ]

 

As for the connectivity issue => I've never had that problem, although my build using a different motherboard than dirtysanchez's.    I have, however, built a couple of these for friends using the Asus P8H77 board, and have never seen the issue, nor have they said anything about it.    You might try re-seating your network cables ... you may have an intermittent connection that's causing a failure whenever it "hiccups".

 

Yop! I ordered some Noctua's, just to be sure

I think I will try some other cables or maybe give the server a fixed ip... It is really strange.

Maybe this question should be posted in an own thread, I dont want to disturb too much over here

What's your network topology?

 

Mine goes through a switch; then a router; then another switch for transfers between my main PC and the server, and I copy image files often (20-50GB) with no problems.  Largest single file on the server is ~ 110GB.    It sounds to me more like a network issue than an UnRAID issue -- if it's not the cables, you may want to try a different router or switch.    These kind of intermittent problems can be VERY difficult to isolate.

 

The computer and unrauid are connected to a netgear WNDR3700 which is just used as a switch. The WNDR3700 is connected to my router, which I have to use because of my ISP... I will check right now that the WNDR3700 is doing nothing (like DNS or so).

 

I just checked the unraid log and  I am a bit worried about that SMB restarts:

 

Oct 10 10:54:57 TOWER emhttp: Spinning up all drives...

Oct 10 10:54:57 TOWER emhttp: Start array...

Oct 10 10:54:57 TOWER kernel: mdcmd (13): spinup 0

Oct 10 10:54:57 TOWER kernel: mdcmd (14): spinup 1

Oct 10 10:54:57 TOWER kernel: mdcmd (15): spinup 2

Oct 10 10:54:57 TOWER kernel: mdcmd (16): start STOPPED

Oct 10 10:54:57 TOWER kernel: unraid: allocating 18660K for 1280 stripes (3 disks)

Oct 10 10:54:57 TOWER kernel: md1: running, size: 3907018532 blocks

Oct 10 10:54:57 TOWER kernel: md2: running, size: 2930266532 blocks

Oct 10 10:54:58 TOWER emhttp: shcmd (21): udevadm settle

Oct 10 10:54:58 TOWER emhttp: shcmd (22): /usr/local/sbin/emhttp_event array_started

Oct 10 10:54:58 TOWER emhttp_event: array_started

Oct 10 10:54:58 TOWER emhttp: Mounting disks...

Oct 10 10:54:58 TOWER emhttp: shcmd (23): mkdir /mnt/disk1

Oct 10 10:54:58 TOWER emhttp: shcmd (24): set -o pipefail ; mount -t reiserfs -o user_xattr,acl,noatime,nodiratime /dev/md1 /mnt/disk1 |& logger

Oct 10 10:54:58 TOWER kernel: REISERFS (device md1): found reiserfs format "3.6" with standard journal

Oct 10 10:54:58 TOWER kernel: REISERFS (device md1): using ordered data mode

Oct 10 10:54:58 TOWER kernel: reiserfs: using flush barriers

Oct 10 10:54:58 TOWER kernel: REISERFS (device md1): journal params: device md1, size 8192, journal first block 18, max trans len 1024, max batch 900, max commit age 30, max trans age 30

Oct 10 10:54:58 TOWER kernel: REISERFS (device md1): checking transaction log (md1)

Oct 10 10:54:58 TOWER kernel: REISERFS (device md1): Using r5 hash to sort names

Oct 10 10:54:58 TOWER emhttp: shcmd (25): chmod 777 '/mnt/disk1'

Oct 10 10:54:58 TOWER emhttp: shcmd (26): chown nobody:users '/mnt/disk1'

Oct 10 10:54:58 TOWER emhttp: shcmd (27): mkdir /mnt/disk2

Oct 10 10:54:58 TOWER emhttp: shcmd (28): set -o pipefail ; mount -t reiserfs -o user_xattr,acl,noatime,nodiratime /dev/md2 /mnt/disk2 |& logger

Oct 10 10:54:58 TOWER kernel: REISERFS (device md2): found reiserfs format "3.6" with standard journal

Oct 10 10:54:58 TOWER kernel: REISERFS (device md2): using ordered data mode

Oct 10 10:54:58 TOWER kernel: reiserfs: using flush barriers

Oct 10 10:54:58 TOWER kernel: REISERFS (device md2): journal params: device md2, size 8192, journal first block 18, max trans len 1024, max batch 900, max commit age 30, max trans age 30

Oct 10 10:54:58 TOWER kernel: REISERFS (device md2): checking transaction log (md2)

Oct 10 10:54:58 TOWER kernel: REISERFS (device md2): Using r5 hash to sort names

Oct 10 10:54:58 TOWER emhttp: shcmd (29): chmod 777 '/mnt/disk2'

Oct 10 10:54:58 TOWER emhttp: shcmd (30): chown nobody:users '/mnt/disk2'

Oct 10 10:54:58 TOWER emhttp: shcmd (31): mkdir /mnt/user

Oct 10 10:54:58 TOWER emhttp: shcmd (32): /usr/local/sbin/shfs /mnt/user -disks 16777214 -o noatime,big_writes,allow_other -o remember=0  |& logger

Oct 10 10:54:58 TOWER emhttp: shcmd (33): crontab -c /etc/cron.d -d &> /dev/null

Oct 10 10:54:58 TOWER emhttp: shcmd (34): /usr/local/sbin/emhttp_event disks_mounted

Oct 10 10:54:58 TOWER emhttp_event: disks_mounted

Oct 10 10:54:58 TOWER emhttp: shcmd (35): :>/etc/samba/smb-shares.conf

Oct 10 10:54:58 TOWER emhttp: Restart SMB...

Oct 10 10:54:58 TOWER emhttp: shcmd (36): killall -HUP smbd

Oct 10 10:54:58 TOWER emhttp: shcmd (37): ps axc | grep -q rpc.mountd

Oct 10 10:54:58 TOWER emhttp: _shcmd: shcmd (37): exit status: 1

Oct 10 10:54:58 TOWER emhttp: shcmd (38): /usr/local/sbin/emhttp_event svcs_restarted

Oct 10 10:54:58 TOWER emhttp_event: svcs_restarted

Oct 10 11:28:00 TOWER kernel: mdcmd (17): spindown 2

Oct 10 12:43:51 TOWER kernel: mdcmd (18): spindown 0

Oct 10 12:43:51 TOWER kernel: mdcmd (19): spindown 1

Oct 10 18:43:24 TOWER emhttp: shcmd (39): :>/etc/samba/smb-shares.conf

Oct 10 18:43:24 TOWER emhttp: Restart SMB...

Oct 10 18:43:24 TOWER emhttp: shcmd (40): killall -HUP smbd

Oct 10 18:43:24 TOWER emhttp: shcmd (41): ps axc | grep -q rpc.mountd

Oct 10 18:43:24 TOWER emhttp: _shcmd: shcmd (41): exit status: 1

Oct 10 18:43:24 TOWER emhttp: shcmd (42): /usr/local/sbin/emhttp_event svcs_restarted

Oct 10 18:43:24 TOWER emhttp_event: svcs_restarted

 

I haven't had the issues you describe. That said, I do sometimes notice SMB restarts in the log on my server. It's entirely possible that I just haven't been doing a large transfer when an SMB restart happened.

Still not working properly  After some time the SMB crashes...

I created a new thread: http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=29767.msg267484#msg267484

Any help is appreciated 

Hi I've been reading up for a while now checking all different builds and found the landfill build to be exactly what am looking for, I am struggling sourcing the motherboard in the uk though , has anyone got any recommendations for an equivalent board in the uk

Hi I've been reading up for a while now checking all different builds and found the landfill build to be exactly what am looking for, I am struggling sourcing the motherboard in the uk though , has anyone got any recommendations for an equivalent board in the uk

 

How about the Haswell version of that board and a Haswell CPU?  Pair it with a Core i3-4130T.  Basically a Haswell version of my Ivy Bridge build.

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/H87I-Plus-Motherboard-Socket-Express-Protection/dp/B00D41V6AK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1384352299&sr=8-1&keywords=asus+h87i

Thanks for the prompt reply . I am pretty rubbish at picking my parts to buy ok at building right so appreciate your advice.

 

 

Would this processor be ok

 

Intel Core i3 4130 Dual Core CPU Retail (Socket 1150, 3.4GHz, 3MB, 54W, Extended Memory 64 Technology, Execute Disable Bit) by Intel http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00EF1G98W/ref=cm_sw_r_udp_awd_nu6Gsb1KW15WR

 

Struggling find the t model

 

 

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

 

The "T" model of a processor is just a lower TDP model, meaning it effectively "runs cooler" because it is throttled and can't hit as high of a clock speed. I originally went with the 3220T because I was worried about heat in such a small case.  My worries were unfounded and the standard 3220 would have worked just fine.

 

So yes, the i3-4130 you linked will work with no problems at all.

Not only is the 4130 a good choice, but you'll find that building this with the Haswell motherboard and CPU will give you a system that's not only faster, but it will also run cooler and use less power !!

 

One of Haswell's goals is better power efficiency, and I have to say it meets that goal in spades !!

 

I've built a couple of Haswell-based systems in the past month, and have been amazed at how power-efficient they are.    Just built an i5-4570 based system last week;  and with 2 4TB Seagate NAS drives spinning, an Intel 240GB SSD; and an active copy from a USB v3 external drive, the system draws 35 watts !!

 

Good stuff

 

I put a list together of all but drives and cables

 

Hello. Please take a look at this list: https://www.amazon.co.uk/registry/wishlist/1ZS06ERZN15ZT/ref=cm_sw_r_an_wl_Mh8Gsb118H1J0

 

If anyone has time to look see if all looks ok I wood appreciate it

 

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

 

Looks good, except I would not use that power supply.  A high-quality SFX unit works MUCH better in that case -- far better airflow; more room for cable organization; etc.

 

I'd use this unit:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/SilverStone-SST-ST45SF-ST45SF/dp/B003LU6PN2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1384368644&sr=8-1&keywords=Silverstone+SFX

This would also work well (at a notably lower cost than the Silverstone):

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Be-Quiet-Power-350W-Small/dp/B002OCYAUS/ref=pd_cp_computers_1

 

In fact, "Be Quiet" also makes a 300w SFX unit, which is plenty for this system:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Be-Quiet-Power-300W-Small/dp/B002OCWO5G/ref=pd_cp_computers_0

 

Note:  The Silverstone units come with SFX -> ATX adapter brackets.  Not sure if the "Be Quiet" units do or not.  If not, you'll need to buy one for ~ $2 or so.

 

Thanks Gary and dirt Sanchez appreciate the advice getting it all ordered tonight

 

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

 

I've built a couple of Haswell-based systems in the past month, and have been amazed at how power-efficient they are.    Just built an i5-4570 based system last week;  and with 2 4TB Seagate NAS drives spinning, an Intel 240GB SSD; and an active copy from a USB v3 external drive, the system draws 35 watts !!

 

Tell me about it.  Just last week I finally upgraded my aging Core 2 desktop gaming machine to an i5-4670K, along with new mobo and RAM of course. The difference is night and day. It runs soooo much cooler and the power draw is so low. Yet it still has an amazing amount of muscle.

Well, this build has been up and running 24x7 for just shy of two years now. Woke up this morning to an "Array Fault" email and a red balled disk. I was unable to pull a SMART report as the drive was completely offline. A quick reboot revealed the oh so familiar click of death and the drive is not recognized. Luckily it's still in-warranty by about 2 months.  I swapped the drive and the array is currently about 70% through the rebuild.

 

I have a cron job that runs SMART reports on all the drives on the 15th of the month. The report on the now failed drive from only 6 days ago is clean as a whistle.

Nice! One thing worth noting about that case you have is it doesn't take kindly to being stuffed in a suitcase and subjected to baggage handlers at an airport.  Other than that though, that's a badass little box!!

LMAO. You sound as if you know this from experience. 

I have a cron job that runs SMART reports on all the drives on the 15th of the month. The report on the now failed drive from only 6 days ago is clean as a whistle.

 

Not surprising ... although SMART tries to predict failures, it's only really good at predicting those that are based on deteriorating platters.  Most electronic or mechanical failures are instant death events ... kinda like light bulbs -- it either works or it doesn't.

 

LMAO. You sound as if you know this from experience. 

 

Yes, it sounds like that might be the case.    A Q25B isn't designed for portability !!  If you want something to move around, use a Lian-Li TU100B (nice, but only supports 2.5" drives) or a BitFenix Prodigy.  But no case is really designed to pop in a standard suitcase and subjected to airport baggage handlers.  I'd either pack them in a shipping box, or get a custom-fit foam lined PC case if you're shipping them as checked luggage.

 

 

LMAO. You sound as if you know this from experience. 

Yes. Was in a pinch and had to resort to something I didn't want to. ;-)