I'm planning a build based on a X9SCM-IIF. Intended use is to serve media files to two different Windows based HTPC's. The server will only be used for unRAID. Maximum number of disks is 10, eight of which will be served by an M1015, the other two from the built in SATA 3 ports on the mobo. Disks will be 4TB.

 

I've done a fair amount of noodling unRAID and have been searching the forum, but would like some input on what seems to be among the most basic of questions.

 

First question is how much horsepower do I need? Will an i3 meet my needs, or should I step up to a Xeon? How much CPU before I'm wasting my money?

 

Second question is how much memory? Is 16 GB overkill?

 

Thanks in advance for your help!

... The server will only be used for unRAID

 

I assume by this you mean purely as a NAS -- no add-ins that consume resources or do transcoding (Plex, etc.)

 

 

Will an i3 meet my needs

 

An i3 is FAR more horsepower than you need ... but IMHO it's still a good choice, as it provides a good bit of

headroom for future needs.    If you are CERTAIN you're never going to do any transcoding, you could save a few $$ and use a lower-end core architecture CPU, but I'd stay with a low end i3 "just because" 

I recently built a system for someone else using an i3-3225 and a bunch of the Seagate 4TB NAS drives, and it performs VERY well.    By the way, I highly recommend the NAS drives -- they are excellent units ... well worth the slight extra cost compared to Seagates' lower cost 4TB drives.

 

Second question is how much memory? Is 16 GB overkill?

 

Yes, 16GB is definitely overkill.  4GB is plenty, although I'd install a pair of 4GB modules (8GB total) to provide a bit of headroom for when UnRAID moves to a 64-bit architecture.

 

Thanks, Gary! Yes, you are correct that I'm planning on using it as a NAS only. I'm using J.River Media Center for music and video, so no transcoding, etc. I'll follow your advice on the CPU and memory.

 

 

Also, had already planned on going Seagate, but didn't know about the NAS version. It's not a lot more money per drive as you point out, so I'll probably go that route as well. Thanks, again!