Think its time to upgrade CPU/Mobo. What would you suggest?

[mgb_]

I'm currently running a Athlon II X2 250e and 880GMA-E53 mobo with 4GB RAM. I just upgraded to the 5rc and now using many of the plugins; SAB, Sick, Couchpotato, Plex (transcoding), msql for XBMC database, Crashplan, and its maxing out the CPU and RAM a lot of the time when downloading/unpacking/repairing files while running a Plex stream. I originally got the CPU because its the energy efficient one and the server is always on and located in the living room so I wanted something I could run with lower fan speeds but its not keeping up anymore. I've already ordered 8GB but I still need some more CPU power. So these are my questions:

 

1. Is it worth upgrading the CPU (AM3 socket) or is it time to get a new motherboard? If its worth upgrading what AM3 CPU would be up for the task?

 

3. If its time to upgrade mobo whats the current recommended platform for my needs, AMD or Intel? And what are the current 'best supported' boards of each for unraid?

 

4. How much CPU power do I need to run all these plugins? Should I be looking at the i3 or i5 lines?

 

I'm really out of the loop on current hardware and most of the "compatibility charts" and info in the wiki was from around 2011. Looking through the compulsive design thread it seemed everything was esxi which i'd rather not do. So any input on a CPU/Mobo combo or if should just upgrade the AM3 socket CPU would be great.

[mgb_]

Here is a screenshot of the system stats. This is without any Plex streams going, just SAB, Sickbeard and Couchpotato.

 

http://i.imgur.com/O0ukFTY.png

[garycase]

For a "bare metal" UnRAID system, I'd go with an i7-3770 to provide maximum "horsepower" for your plugins.    There's a good discussion about upgrade options in this thread:

http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=27541.msg242584#msg242584

[mgb_]

Thanks! Looking into a the i7-3770 or a Xeon E1230v2/E1240v2.

 

As far as motherboards go, what should I be looking for? In the thread you linked they had the GA-Z77X-UD5H but for almost $40 cheaper I could get Z77A-GD65 with free 8GB ram. Any reason to get the gigabyt and not msi?

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130643

 

Also, say I wanted to go with a server mobo and ECC, what server mobos are compatible with unraid and recommended?

 

Thanks!

[Ford Prefect]

Also, say I wanted to go with a server mobo and ECC, what server mobos are compatible with unraid and recommended?

 

...Supermicro  X9SCM-F or X9SCM-iiF are the models of choice for the 1155 socket.

The -F models come with IPMI...complete remote management capability from within your webbrowser...you will never go without it again 

[mgb_]

Awesome thanks! Looks like the only difference is the nic chipset in these two? Both of these will run unraid natively? I don't plan on running esxi as of now. 

[garycase]

Awesome thanks! Looks like the only difference is the nic chipset in these two? Both of these will run unraid natively? I don't plan on running esxi as of now.

 

Yes, the -iiF has two identical NICs.    The server-class boards also support ECC memory when used with one of the Xeons.  An X9SCM-iiF with a 1230v2 or 1240v2 is an excellent combination.  The 1240v2 equals the performance of an i7-3770.

 

[mgb_]

Thanks for the help! Sounds like the best path for me, allowing the option for esxi in the near future.

[garycase]

Thanks for the help! Sounds like the best path for me, allowing the option for esxi in the near future.

 

Agree -- ESPECIALLY if there's any chance you're going to want to move to virtualization.

 

FWIW, if I was buying a new system right now it would be an X9SCM-iiF with a Xeon E3-1240v2 and a pair of 8GB ECC modules (total of 16GB)

 

[outatouch0]

Hi, I'm too new to even be a NOOB here.

 

I was looking at these server boards earlier today - comparing them with PC boards that have 8 SATA3 (6Gbps) built in at half the cost.

 

1) My thinking is a server board should have more of these built in rather than having to add more expensive PCIe cards to an already somewhat pricey board???

 

2) Is there a real world difference in the SATA2 (3Gbps) with spinning hard drives supposedly SATA3 capable (Such as Western Digital blacks)?

 

thanks

[garycase]

1) My thinking is a server board should have more of these built in rather than having to add more expensive PCIe cards to an already somewhat pricey board???

 

Different markets -- server boards generally support ECC or registered RAM modules (more reliable than unbuffered RAM);  have management capabilities that desktop boards don't; etc.  If you're just going to run "bare metal" UnRAID (i.e. no virtualization), then a good desktop board is fine.    One other thing server boards tend to have more of:  PCIe slots with multiple lanes (4, 8, or 16) => a lot of desktop boards have a single x16 slot (for graphics, although if it has onboard graphics you can use it for other cards), and a few x1 slots.    The x1 slots aren't very useful if you need to add more SATA ports.

 

 

2) Is there a real world difference in the SATA2 (3Gbps) with spinning hard drives supposedly SATA3 capable (Such as Western Digital blacks)?

 

No, you won't notice any difference with a traditional (rotating platter) hard drive.  With SSDs the faster interface matters; but with a spinning drive SATA2 is already FAR faster than any drive can support.    There IS a very slight advantage when doing buffer <-> PC transfers, but this is a TINY % of disk activity, so it makes virtually no difference in performance.

 

 

 

[outatouch0]

Thanks for the reply. As I said I am newer than new...I appreciate your comments and understand all of it except for "Virtualization." What does that mean or do?

thanks

[garycase]

Thanks for the reply. As I said I am newer than new...I appreciate your comments and understand all of it except for "Virtualization." What does that mean or do?

thanks

 

The short answer is that if you have to ask you don't want to do it 

 

A somewhat more complete answer:  Virtualization refers to running a "virtual" machine ... i.e. you run a management program called a hypervisor; and within that hypervisor you can create one or more "virtual" systems ==> these "look" just like actual computers to the underlying operating systems ... but they're not.    So you could, for example, on one physical system have UnRAID running in one virtual machine;  Windows XP running in another;  Windows 7 in another; etc.  You'll see a lot of references on this forum to ESXi ... that's a popular hypervisor that several folks have used to virtualize UnRAID.    But if you simply want a good, reliable, standalone storage server, you don't need to be concerned about virtualization.

 

[outatouch0]

Thanks!

That IS beyond the scope of what I will need/want to do.

 

So the last bit of detail for me to square up is just how important ECC is actually going to be for an HTTP(s) server, family photos, and some file/OS backups?

 

Don't mean to be a thread highjack - I believe my questions are within the scope of the OP.

[garycase]

Thanks!

That IS beyond the scope of what I will need/want to do.

 

So the last bit of detail for me to square up is just how important ECC is actually going to be for an HTTP(s) server, family photos, and some file/OS backups?

 

Don't mean to be a thread highjack - I believe my questions are within the scope of the OP.

 

Given a choice, I'd always use ECC memory ... but with desktop boards that's simply not a choice these days.    The simple fact is that as long as you only install two modules in a desktop board, the bus loading is reasonable, and your memory subsystem will be very reliable.  Not, of course, as reliable as a system with ECC, but probably good enough.  But I have one very simple rule -- whether you're talking about desktop boards or server-grade boards that still use unbuffered RAM, but at least with ECC:  NEVER install more than two modules of unbuffered RAM.

 

[Ford Prefect]

But I have one very simple rule -- whether you're talking about desktop boards or server-grade boards that still use unbuffered RAM, but at least with ECC:  NEVER install more than two modules of unbuffered RAM.

 

Why is that?

I'd value your brief explanation on that topic, if you could spare the time.

...and the conclusion is, if registered ECC is supported - i.e. for a server board - one should prefer that over unbuffered ECC (when wanting to go for >2 modules)?

[garycase]

... if registered ECC is supported - i.e. for a server board - one should prefer that over unbuffered ECC (when wanting to go for >2 modules)?

 

Absolutely if registered RAM is an option, use it.

 

Unbuffered modules present one "load" per chip to the memory buses ... so a typical module presents 16 loads (32 if it's double-sided with 16 chips/side).    Buffered (registered or FBDIMM) modules present one load/MODULE ... a FAR lower electrical load on bus drivers.    Loading degrades the signaling, so the more load, the poorer quality the signaling is, and the less reliable the memory system will be.      Ever had a home where you plugged in too many telephones?  Same idea.  [Young folks who don't remember wired phones probably won't get that analogy]

 

Play Item #10 here to get an overview of what's happening:  http://www.xlrq.com/stacks/corsair/153707/index.html

 

Bottom line:  If you're using unbuffered modules, the more you plug in, the less reliable the memory will be.  Doesn't mean more modules won't work -- but if you have 4 modules installed and get occasional random "glitches" in your system, try removing two memory modules and you may very well see the "glitches" disappear 

 

Note:  At least server boards that use unbuffered RAM usually support ECC modules, so you'll have single-bit error correction ==>  using 4 modules on those boards is a bit more acceptable.

 

[Ford Prefect]

Thank you garycase for your explanation and the link to that knowledge video.

I gather that manufacturers are very well aware of that problem and will provide a proper design for the number of module slots they offer on a board.

When looking at the S2011 models from SM, you can see that they support more memory (modules) for registered than they do for unbuffered....so we now know the reason why ;-)

 

thanks again!

 

Best regards,

Ford

 

 

[garycase]

I gather that manufacturers are very well aware of that problem and will provide a proper design for the number of module slots they offer on a board.

 

Not necessarily true.  MANY board with 4 slots have issues if you actually populate all 4 of them.  If you use single-sided low-load modules in the slots, then populating all 4 is generally okay.  In addition, some boards will automatically add a latency cycle; reduce the clock speed; or both when you install 4 modules ... these measures provide a bit more "settling time" for the signaling, which can help offset the degraded signal.

 

But the BEST approach is to simply never install more than 2 modules on an unbuffered system.

 

You can, of course, fully populate any system that uses buffered modules -- note that it would take 16 buffered modules to present the same load on the bus as ONE unbuffered module => so loading is simply not an issue.

 

[outatouch0]

thanks, You have helped me come to a decision on which board to order! I appreciate it.