I am getting ready to order my parts but was hoping for a sanity check.

 

I had a Synology NAS but the motherboard has died. I want to be in control and be able to fix things rather than buying a complete setup if something dies. I used the Synology drive as a NAS - nothing more. And I will likely do the same at least at first but I am intrigued about doing more. Right now I only have about 3TB od data....

 

I have a solid HTPC so this just serves videos right now for XBMC/Kodi.

 

So here is what I am thinking of buying:

 

Board: SuperMicro X10SL7-F

Memory: Crucial 8GB DDR3 PC3-14900 Unbuffered ECC 1.5V 1024Meg x 72 (recommended for this board)

Parity Drive: Western Digital Red 6TB 3.5" 5400RPM Internal Hard Drive

Power Supply: SeaSonic 650W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply

Case: Fractal Design Node 804

 

I can't decide on the CPU - for my main use case, a NAS, could I get away with an Intel Pentium Processor G3220 3.0 GHz?

 

But I am tempted for something like an Intel Xeon E3-1230V3 Haswell, 3.3GHz, 8MB L3 Cache LGA 1150 so I can do more things...

 

Also trying to decide whether to do a cache drive. Something like a Crucial MX100 256GB 2.5" Solid State Drive

 

For my main drives, I have a couple of 3TB Western Digital Red that I will use short term. Will then add in 6TB or 4TB Reds as I go....

 

Any comments or thoughts would be most welcome. Thanks!

 

I have the same motherboard with a Xeon E3-1276V3 CPU. It handles everything i throw it and very pleased with it. What will be the primary use for the server?

 

Go for a cache drive, mine is 500gb and serves me well. You shouldnt need more than 500gb if you have it scheduled to move the files every night.

Honestly, if you're only going to use the server for media storage and streaming purposes, the xeon processor is overkill.  Since you're using Kodi, all transcoding (if any) is done on the client side, so no server processor work is necessary.  Something like a low-powered core-i3 would be more than enough, and would run a lot cooler and lower power than the xeon, or even the Pentium you mentioned (though you'd lose ecc memory support).  On that note, that sure is an expensive motherboard!  Seems like you could find a perfectly acceptable motherboard for well under $100 unless you're absolutely set on running ECC memory.  Running ECC memory is never a bad idea, but it comes down to price vs priority I guess.  I went back and fourth on my build about it, but ultimately decided it wasn't worth the extra cost.  Between the processor, mobo, and ram, it can increase a build by a lot.  To each their own though.

 

At this current time, 5TB drives are a much better bang-for-buck purchase, compared to 6TB.  If you want your parity drive to be 6TB for futureproofing, I totally get it, but since you only have 3 TB of media now, it seems like a few 5TB drives would be more than enough.  You can pick up 5TB drives for well under $150 (I just picked up 4 Toshiba's for $140 each), whereas 6TB drives will run over $200 at least.

 

One last thing, if you're on the fence about a cache drive, DON'T be.  If you plan to run any docker apps to enhance your media server experience like couch potato, sick beard, plex, etc, you'll absolutely want a cache drive to run the apps.  You don't need 256GB though.  I'm running all the previously mentioned docker apps, along with some others, and my cache disk is only 60GB.  Again keeping bang-for-buck in mind, it seems like the best value right now is in the 120/128GB SSDs.  256GB SSDs are coming down in price fast though, so you might be fine there.  Also, if you plan to use the cache drive for quicker file transfer (I don't), then 256GB would be a better bet.

The Pentium will work for basic NAS usage; but I'd go with the Xeon so you're "future proof" r.e. any additional uses you decide to toss at the server.

 

That's a very nice setup and should serve you well for years to come.

 

The Pentium will work for basic NAS usage; but I'd go with the Xeon so you're "future proof" r.e. any additional uses you decide to toss at the server.

 

That's a very nice setup and should serve you well for years to come.

 

Very true, there's definitely something to be said about futureproofing, especially with a server.

The Pentium will work for basic NAS usage; but I'd go with the Xeon so you're "future proof" r.e. any additional uses you decide to toss at the server.

 

That's a very nice setup and should serve you well for years to come.

 

Very true, there's definitely something to be said about futureproofing, especially with a server.

 

Learn from my mistake. I wish I had gone with a i5 or i7 or Xeon for the VT-d support alone. I want to run an OpenELEC VM, but I can't because of this single feature.

Honestly, if you're only going to use the server for media storage and streaming purposes, the xeon processor is overkill.  Since you're using Kodi, all transcoding (if any) is done on the client side, so no server processor work is necessary.  Something like a low-powered core-i3 would be more than enough, and would run a lot cooler and lower power than the xeon, or even the Pentium you mentioned (though you'd lose ecc memory support).  On that note, that sure is an expensive motherboard!  Seems like you could find a perfectly acceptable motherboard for well under $100 unless you're absolutely set on running ECC memory.  Running ECC memory is never a bad idea, but it comes down to price vs priority I guess.  I went back and fourth on my build about it, but ultimately decided it wasn't worth the extra cost.  Between the processor, mobo, and ram, it can increase a build by a lot.  To each their own though.

 

At this current time, 5TB drives are a much better bang-for-buck purchase, compared to 6TB.  If you want your parity drive to be 6TB for futureproofing, I totally get it, but since you only have 3 TB of media now, it seems like a few 5TB drives would be more than enough.  You can pick up 5TB drives for well under $150 (I just picked up 4 Toshiba's for $140 each), whereas 6TB drives will run over $200 at least.

 

One last thing, if you're on the fence about a cache drive, DON'T be.  If you plan to run any docker apps to enhance your media server experience like couch potato, sick beard, plex, etc, you'll absolutely want a cache drive to run the apps.  You don't need 256GB though.  I'm running all the previously mentioned docker apps, along with some others, and my cache disk is only 60GB.  Again keeping bang-for-buck in mind, it seems like the best value right now is in the 120/128GB SSDs.  256GB SSDs are coming down in price fast though, so you might be fine there.  Also, if you plan to use the cache drive for quicker file transfer (I don't), then 256GB would be a better bet.

 

According to intel's website, G3220 support ECC memory.

http://ark.intel.com/products/77773/Intel-Pentium-Processor-G3220-3M-Cache-3_00-GHz

May I ask why choosing Pentium would lose ECC memory support?

 

I would like to use Pentium G3258, X10SLM-F (or S10SLL-F) and ECC memory in my build.

According to intel's website, G3220 support ECC memory.

http://ark.intel.com/products/77773/Intel-Pentium-Processor-G3220-3M-Cache-3_00-GHz

May I ask why choosing Pentium would lose ECC memory support?

 

I would like to use Pentium G3258, X10SLM-F (or S10SLL-F) and ECC memory in my build.

 

I meant that going with a low powered core-i3 would lose ecc.  Both the mentioned pentium and xeon processors support ecc memory. Mr-hexen brings up a great point about VT-d support as well. Only the xeon has that. Something to keep in mind depending on what you plan to use the server for.

If you're going to use a server-class motherboard (a good idea) with ECC RAM, my view is simply that this isn't the time to scrimp on the CPU ... spend the extra $$ for a Xeon and you'll have much more CPU "horsepower", full support for hardware virtualization and pass-through; and simply a better system overall.

 

BTW, there are several i3's that have ECC support, as well as some Celeron and Pentium models.  Just check the Intel Ark site before you make a decision to be sure you can at least take advantage of your board's ECC capabilities.

 

 

 

 

I meant that going with a low powered core-i3 would lose ecc. 

 

Wrong.   

 

 

OP, a Pentium will work just fine, the only time you're going to need anything better is if you're going to be using Plex heavily.  For one user, the Pentium G3220 is fine.

 

Also, consider the BX100 SSD.  I have a pair of them, and I've found them to be excellent.  They actually run quicker in real world use than the MX100 in my experience.  I see little difference between the BX100 and the MX200, too, apart from price.

If you're going to use a server-class motherboard (a good idea) with ECC RAM, my view is simply that this isn't the time to scrimp on the CPU ... spend the extra $$ for a Xeon and you'll have much more CPU "horsepower", full support for hardware virtualization and pass-through; and simply a better system overall.

Yep I agree.  Either go with an inexpensive option without ECC if you have a smaller budget, or go server grade components.  I didn't mean to make it sound like the server grade option was a bad idea, sorry if I came across that way.  Depending on what the server will be used for, it's just nice to know there is a much less expensive option, if your budget is tight.

 

 

I meant that going with a low powered core-i3 would lose ecc. 

 

Wrong.   

 

 

OP, a Pentium will work just fine, the only time you're going to need anything better is if you're going to be using Plex heavily.  For one user, the Pentium G3220 is fine.

 

Also, consider the BX100 SSD.  I have a pair of them, and I've found them to be excellent.  They actually run quicker in real world use than the MX100 in my experience.  I see little difference between the BX100 and the MX200, too, apart from price.

 

Nothing about what I said is wrong.  Some of the Core-i3 series do not support ECC, so you just have to be careful and do your research, and I never said the pentium wouldn't work.  All I said is that if you wanted a lower power option, you could go with the Core-i3 since that Pentium is a 54W TDP.  The Core-i3 series is more efficient.

 

I guess I could amend my original statement to say "could lose ecc" instead of "would lose ecc".

 

Nothing about what I said is wrong.  Some of the Core-i3 series do not support ECC, so you just have to be careful and do your research, and I never said the pentium wouldn't work.  All I said is that if you wanted a lower power option, you could go with the Core-i3 since that Pentium is a 54W TDP.  The Core-i3 series is more efficient.

 

I guess I could amend my original statement to say "could lose ecc" instead of "would lose ecc".

 

Well, I would argue those points.

 

All Haswell chips use similar power when idling.  TDP does not equal power consumption, which is why it's called "Thermal Design Power". 

 

I could take a 35W Haswell, plug it in and get 18W idle.  Plug in an 88W Haswell, and guess what?  Still 18W.  A Haswell core is a Haswell core is a Haswell core.  An i7 Haswell core is the same as a CeleronT Haswell core, there's just more of them running faster.

 

Under load, obviously the 88W chip is going to use more power, because it's likely to be a quad core chip, possibly with Hyperthreading.  However, there's a commonly held belief that the low power chips are actually less efficient in high load situations, due to the 'race to sleep' (Google it if you want to know more).

Your dual core 2.1GHz chip is going to take X amount of time to do Y work.  A quad core with HT at 2.1GHz, the work will be done in 25% of the time, which means the chip can return to 18W faster than your low power chip.  Run that quad core with HT at 4.2GHz, you're down to 12.5% (or 1/8th) of the time.  A quad core with HT is not going to use 8 times the power to complete Y compared to the low-power chip, it's going to use less.

 

So, if you're going to be using a server that's going to have high CPU load at intermittent times, and power consumption is a concern, it's actually better to buy the fastest chip you can. 

 

Now, obviously those 35W chips have their place, they work great in HTPC scenarios, or very low loaded servers like pure NAS boxes or firewalls or the likes.

 

For a Plex server, you need 2000 CPUmarks per stream, at least.  A low-power Pentium chip might be able to run one stream, possibly two if you're lucky.  A 88W Xeon or i5 is going to be able to handle 6 or 8 streams.

Agree that TDP does not impact efficiency.  The biggest advantage of the low-power chips is that it puts a ceiling on power draw and heat generation ... so if you're putting this in an environment where you want to use a very low noise cooling solution (low speed fan or even a passive cooler) the low TDP limits how much power the CPU will draw.

 

But if you have adequate cooling, I agree with using the best CPU you can ... I use nothing but i7-4790's for all of my systems these days.  (except server class boards, where I use Xeon E3's)

 

 

Nothing about what I said is wrong.  Some of the Core-i3 series do not support ECC, so you just have to be careful and do your research, and I never said the pentium wouldn't work.  All I said is that if you wanted a lower power option, you could go with the Core-i3 since that Pentium is a 54W TDP.  The Core-i3 series is more efficient.

 

I guess I could amend my original statement to say "could lose ecc" instead of "would lose ecc".

 

Well, I would argue those points.

 

All Haswell chips use similar power when idling.  TDP does not equal power consumption, which is why it's called "Thermal Design Power". 

 

I could take a 35W Haswell, plug it in and get 18W idle.  Plug in an 88W Haswell, and guess what?  Still 18W.  A Haswell core is a Haswell core is a Haswell core.  An i7 Haswell core is the same as a CeleronT Haswell core, there's just more of them running faster.

 

Under load, obviously the 88W chip is going to use more power, because it's likely to be a quad core chip, possibly with Hyperthreading.  However, there's a commonly held belief that the low power chips are actually less efficient in high load situations, due to the 'race to sleep' (Google it if you want to know more).

Your dual core 2.1GHz chip is going to take X amount of time to do Y work.  A quad core with HT at 2.1GHz, the work will be done in 25% of the time, which means the chip can return to 18W faster than your low power chip.  Run that quad core with HT at 4.2GHz, you're down to 12.5% (or 1/8th) of the time.  A quad core with HT is not going to use 8 times the power to complete Y compared to the low-power chip, it's going to use less.

 

So, if you're going to be using a server that's going to have high CPU load at intermittent times, and power consumption is a concern, it's actually better to buy the fastest chip you can. 

 

Now, obviously those 35W chips have their place, they work great in HTPC scenarios, or very low loaded servers like pure NAS boxes or firewalls or the likes.

 

For a Plex server, you need 2000 CPUmarks per stream, at least.  A low-power Pentium chip might be able to run one stream, possibly two if you're lucky.  A 88W Xeon or i5 is going to be able to handle 6 or 8 streams.

 

I'm not arguing with any of your points.  They are all valid and true.  However, if we're comparing the Pentium that the OP mentioned with a Core-i3 I suggested, say for example an i3-4150T, your quad-core arguments (race to sleep, X to do Y, etc) don't really apply.  These are both dual core chips, both clocking in at 3GHz.  The pentium isn't as powerful, and under load will consume more power.  The i3 could support (probably, no guarantees) 2 1080p transcoding streams, while the pentium would only handle 1, and the i3 would do it while consuming less.  Another note about this comparison is that the G3220 only supports up to DDR3 1333, whereas the i3 supports 1600.  Not a deal-breaker, but it is noteworthy.

 

Long story longer, the only point I'm trying to make is that, if the OP decided to stick with a lower-end processor to keep their budget down, I'd suggest the i3 over that pentium, for the reasons I stated above.  If the budget supports an ECC setup with server-class components like a Xeon or i7 processor, then great.  Like I've eluded to before though, there is a place for both, and it simply depends on what you want the server to be/do.  Not everyone wants to drop $250 or more on a processor, if a viable option for their situation could be had for $100 or less.  I'm just providing the OP with another option, that's all.