20 Drive Beast vs 20 Drive Budget Beast (+ Discussion of 22 Drive Beast)

[Rajahal]

I decided to split up the 20 Drive Beast into two separate builds, the 20 Drive Beast and the 20 Drive Budget Beast.

 

The Beast is designed for power and features (i3, IPMI, etc).  The Budget Beast designed to be as cheap as possible (Celeron 430, no IPMI).  Both use the Norco 4220.

 

This thread is for comments, feedback, and new hardware recommendations as the current hardware becomes outdated.

[Joe L.]

I decided to split up the 20 Drive Beast into two separate builds, the 20 Drive Beast and the 20 Drive Budget Beast.

The Budget Beast designed to be as cheap as possible (Celeron 430, no IPMI).  Both use the Norco 4220.

You can fashion a case from some scrap plywood...    Saves a bit of cost over the Norco.

[Rajahal]

True, but would that qualify as a 'recommended build'?  I'm not sure I would recommend that to anyone.

[BobPhoenix]

SuperMicro has the C2SEE at end of life now so that is probably why it has dropped in price.  Also I see the memory list in Wiki entry is ECC but SuperMicro specifically states non-ECC.

[Rajahal]

Good catch BobPhoenix.  How does this look instead?

 

I'm having trouble finding RAM that is certified to be non-ECC and unbuffered.  SuperMicro specifies both, but does the latter matter?

[Joe L.]

Good catch BobPhoenix.  How does this look instead?

 

I'm having trouble finding RAM that is certified to be non-ECC and unbuffered.  SuperMicro specifies both, but does the latter matter?

The SuperMicro board is said to be very picky about the memory it uses.  I'd say it matters.

[ohlwiler]

Why not the 4224 for the 20 22 Drive Beast?

[BobPhoenix]

Good catch BobPhoenix.  How does this look instead?

That's one of the recommended models on the Kingston site.

[Rajahal]

BobPhoenix: Great, I'll update the wiki with the new RAM.

 

ohlwiler: I would generally stray away from the Norco 4224 as the cost is so much higher, but we can definitely discuss it.  Maybe we could have a separate 22 drive build, if there's enough interest.  The 4224 is currently $100 more than the 4220.  So it is slightly more expensive per drive bay ($16.67 instead of $15).  You would also need a second SATA - SAS reverse breakout cable to connect to the 6th backplane (for drives #21 and 22).  So the total price difference is something like $120 for those two extra drive bays.  Personally, I don't see that as being a worthwhile investment, but some people may.  My reasoning is that the same funds could be used to upgrade your smallest drive to a 2 TB drive.  Though for someone who has already maxed out their server with 2 TB drives, I suppose it makes sense.

 

The last two drive bays would have to go unused as unRAID currently supports 22 drives max.  However, I suppose you could mount those last two drives (#23 and 24) outside the array and use them for something else.  To do so would require the SUPERMICRO MBD-X8SIL motherboard, a third SuperMicro AOC-SASLP-MV8, and a 5th SAS cable.  So the price difference there jumps up well over $300.  Again, not worth it in my opinion.

 

unRAID's current 22 drive requirement also includes the cache drive, so if you wanted to use all 22 drives you would have to use a cache drive.  For anyone who doesn't want to use a cache drive, the limit is 21 drives (1 parity + 20 data).  So the 4220 is really only 'wasting' one drive slot.

 

The only real argument in favor of the 4224 that makes sense to me is being prepared for future unRAID expansion.  I would expect that at some point unRAID's drive limit will increase further, maybe to 24 or even 30 drives.  So it would make sense to me for someone to build a server out of the 4224 today so that they could then have the ability to make use of any future unRAID expansions.  However, that's always a gamble as there's no promise that unRAID will ever go over 22 drives.

[BobPhoenix]

BobPhoenix: Great, I'll update the wiki with the new RAM.

 

ohlwiler: I would generally stray away from the Norco 4224 as the cost is so much higher, but we can definitely discuss it.  Maybe we could have a separate 22 drive build, if there's enough interest.  The 4224 is currently $100 more than the 4220.  So it is slightly more expensive per drive bay ($16.67 instead of $15).  You would also need a second SATA - SAS reverse breakout cable to connect to the 6th backplane (for drives #21 and 22).  So the total price difference is something like $120 for those two extra drive bays.  Personally, I don't see that as being a worthwhile investment, but some people may.  My reasoning is that the same funds could be used to upgrade your smallest drive to a 2 TB drive.  Though for someone who has already maxed out their server with 2 TB drives, I suppose it makes sense.

 

The last two drive bays would have to go unused as unRAID currently supports 22 drives max.  However, I suppose you could mount those last two drives (#23 and 24) outside the array and use them for something else.  To do so would require the SUPERMICRO MBD-X8SIL motherboard, a third SuperMicro AOC-SASLP-MV8, and a 5th SAS cable.  So the price difference there jumps up well over $300.  Again, not worth it in my opinion.

 

unRAID's current 22 drive requirement also includes the cache drive, so if you wanted to use all 22 drives you would have to use a cache drive.  For anyone who doesn't want to use a cache drive, the limit is 21 drives (1 parity + 20 data).  So the 4220 is really only 'wasting' one drive slot.

 

The only real argument in favor of the 4224 that makes sense to me is being prepared for future unRAID expansion.  I would expect that at some point unRAID's drive limit will increase further, maybe to 24 or even 30 drives.  So it would make sense to me for someone to build a server out of the 4224 today so that they could then have the ability to make use of any future unRAID expansions.  However, that's always a gamble as there's no promise that unRAID will ever go over 22 drives.

Actually couldn't you just use a two port card combined with the 6 Motherboard ports and two reverse breakout cables to the backplanes?  I'm asking because I don't know and I'm thinking about something like this.  I'm already at 19TB used on a 22TB unRAID box and I still have 15TB to copy.

[Joe L.]

I'm already at 19TB used on a 22TB unRAID box and I still have 15TB to copy.

The pointy haired boss in Dilbert would just say to use smaller fonts for the file names. 

 

[Rajahal]

That's true, I forgot about that option.  A 2 port card on an available PCIe x1 slot would work fine.  However, the 20 Drive Beast build's mobo doesn't have a PCIe x1 slot, so this would only work with the 20 Drive Budget Beast's mobo.  That definitely makes the 22 Drive Beast a lot cheaper.

 

So the 22 drive beast would look like this:

 

CPU: Intel Celeron 430

Motherboard: SUPERMICRO MBD-C2SEE-O

RAM: Kingston ValueRAM 2GB 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 (PC3 10600) Desktop Memory Model KVR1333D3N9/2G

Expansion Cards:

    Supermicro AOC-SASLP-MV8 x 2

    SATA2 Serial ATA II PCI-Express RAID Controller Card (Silicon Image SIL3132) x 1

Cables:

    SFF-8087 to SFF-8087 SAS cable x 4

    SFF-8087 Reverse (SFF8087OCR) x 2

Power Supply: CORSAIR CMPSU-650TX

Case: Norco 4224 + optional fanplate and replacement fans

 

At current prices (as of 11/5/2010), the above configuration totals:

$976 + Shipping + Cost of Hard Drives (With 22 Hot Swap Bays, supports up to 22 drives)

 

That is actually pretty decent, and the price makes sense for 22 drives.  With this build you are paying about $45 per drive bay, whereas with the 20 Drive Budget Beast you are paying about $42 per drive bay.  You will still have two unusable drive bays (they would make a good place to store cold spares, if there were some way to not send power to those two bays).

 

The only downside I can see is that with this configuration you wouldn't be able to ever use those last two drive bays without upgrading the motherboard (well, I guess you could put them on the PCI bus, but not without consequences).

 

[BobPhoenix]

I'm already at 19TB used on a 22TB unRAID box and I still have 15TB to copy.

The pointy haired boss in Dilbert would just say to use smaller fonts for the file names. 

 

What can I say.  I'm a pack rat.  I will have to go through the recordings and eliminate duplicates again.  Especially since I'm combining the recordings from 4 SageTV servers to the unRAID box.  May save 4 or 5 TB that way.

[ohlwiler]

Raj,

 

As usual you laid out the pros and cons very well. I agree with all your points, but perhaps weight them a little differently. Current pricing makes the 4224 logical for a small subset of users. I think it is worthwhile to mention it because there are users that are choosing that option right now.

 

Cases last a long time. When unRAID was first released we were limited to 11 data drives and 1 parity. In the future I strongly believe that we will get a second parity drive (at least I hope so). If that happens then there is no reason not to allow really large numbers of data drives.

 

20 vs. 24 drives. Tom will add 3 more data drives if there is interest. If you are running two SASLPs you can move to 24 drives for the cost of a two port controller (PCI or PCIe) and a reverse breakout cable assuming 6 on board drives. That would cost about $30. Even a C2SEE can support 24 drives. The price differential between the 4224 and the 4220 right now is pretty high, but it will come down. If we are going to calculate cost per port, we need to include more than the cost of the case, we need to include all the hardware and the cost of the unRAID license. Now those extra 4 ports for about $150 look pretty good to me.

 

4220 about $1200 (20 drive beast and license) $63/port

 

4224 about $1350 (20 drive beast, SIL 3132, 8087 cable, 750tx power supply and license) $59/port

 

I agree that all of this only makes sense if Tom adds 2-3 more drives. I think the 4224 will drive that. In the past he delayed bumping up the number of drives simply because he didn't have the ability to test to that number (as I recall). Now that he is using the SASLP that is no longer the case.

[ohlwiler]

The 8XSIL had three PCIe ports two 8x and one 4x, the two SASLPs and a SIL 3132 will work fine. The C2SEE had one 8x, one 4x and one 1x. This will also support two SASLPs and a SIL 3132.

[ohlwiler]

The pointy haired boss in Dilbert would just say to use smaller fonts for the file names.

 

Ha!

[Rajahal]

Ah yes, I forgot again that PCIe x1 cards can be used in larger slots.  So the 22-24 drive beast could use either motherboard.

 

The price per drive bay I listed below the 22 Drive Beast breakdown included all the hardware, just not the drives, flash drive, unRAID license, or shipping.

 

I agree that if there's enough demand for 24 drive servers that Tom is likely to increase the drive count.  However, I would also expect that this would take a back seat to the work he is currently doing on the 5.0 beta, so I wouldn't count on it happening anytime soon.

 

Another point against it is that unRAID supporting 3 TB drives would allow us to achieve much higher capacities than just the addition of two more drive slots.  So maybe that should come first as well (though in that realm Tom is dependent on the various hardware manufacturers at least until an industry-wide solution is reached).

 

Well, I tend to prefer to not list recommended builds unless they have actually been tested by someone.  However, the 22 Drive Beast as detailed above uses all tried-and-true hardware, so I'm inclined to think it is wiki-worthy already.  Thoughts?

 

On a similar note, we could also post a 24 Drive Beast to the wiki with a large warning that unRAID currently supports up to 22 Drives.  If enough people reported using that build with success, that might light a fire under Tom to raise the unRAID drive limit.

 

Final thought - anyone have a better name for these builds than the whatever Drive Beast?  My build names aren't terribly creative.

[madpoet]

Well, I just ordered a 4224.  I was going to skip it and go with the 4220, but I really like having slots 21 and 22 available as full 3.5" drives.  23 and 24 are a waste for now, but I can always pop in a 2port SATA card later and combine it with the 2 spare ports on my motherboard to get to the full 24 if Tom ever gives us more space   I also got the official 120mm fan bracket, hopefully it fits without hacking it up like people had to on the 4220.

[Rajahal]

It should, the fanplate was designed for the 4224 and it was just sort of assumed that it would work on the 4220 as well.

 

Sounds like you have a good plan to me.

 

It would be great if there was some way to not supply power to the #23 and 24 drive slots.  That would allow you to use those slots to store cold spares.  You could still use them to store spare drives as is, but they would be spun up all the time for no reason (waste of power).

 

If you did hook them up to your mobo somehow (via PCIe x1 or whatever), you could use them as dedicated preclear slots...unRAID won't detect them, but preclear should be able to.

[ohlwiler]

Final thought - anyone have a better name for these builds than the whatever Drive Beast?  My build names aren't terribly creative.

 

24 Drive MONSTER?

[MrGrumpie]

This thread has just reminded me, I need to post my 20-bay beast (UK build) in the pimp my rig thread.  Just finished mine after reading lots on here and asking many silly questions

[madpoet]

My 4224 arrived... holy cow what a beast.  I'll be building over the weekend.

[dgaschk]

I suggest the 4020 for the budget beast: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811219021

 

This is $45 cheaper but requires different and more cables. Does it save cost even with the greater number of cables?

[Rajahal]

Well, let's see.  The 4020 would require 4 forward breakout cables and 4 standard SATA cables.  Keeping everything else the same, that makes the total $855.65 + shipping + cost of hard drives (compared to $845 for the 4220 version).  So you will be paying more overall for what I consider to be a worse build (8 cables needed instead of 5).  The price difference is due to the forward breakout cables being the most expensive type (more expensive than the SAS-SAS or the reverse breakout).  The build would also be more complicated, since each of the drive bays would require it's own SATA cable....

 

I don't see much of a draw there.

[bcbgboy13]

FYI

 

The standard SFF-8087 to SFF-8087 cables are available from EBay with prices starting from US$5 or less often with free shipping.

 

This is where the demand from industry is coming and a cable assembly like this is the least expensive to manufacture so it shows in the price.

At this price point there is virtually no difference between one such cable and four good quality SATA cables with latches.