Hard drive question for sagetv client

[CPA]

I am turning my old HP Pavillion xt915/1.0 Ghz Celeron/512MB memory/xfx 5200 into a Sage client machine for the bedroom. I have two hard drives available for this function:

Seagate/80GB/7200/2MB buffer
WD/160GB/7200/8MB buffer.

The question is which drive would you use for system and apps and which for media? If the buffers were the same it would seem obvious to put the 80GB as system and the 160GB as media. But will I get better playback with the extra cache of the 160GB as a system disc? I would, of course, partition the 160 with probably 15GB for system and apps and 145 for non sage files. What are your thoughts?

CPA

[mattdcknsn]

If it is going to be a purely client machine then go with the seagate. You will not use the buffer much if playing video from the network. However, if this is going to be encoding video as well then go with the WD.

[deadtoaster2]

Buffer or Cache always means some memory that is faster than the typical one, be it the cache in a processor that is faster than RAM or the cache in a hard drive, which is faster than an access to the hard drive itself.

I'm not totally sure how much the cache in a hard drive is actually worth, because every decent operating systems should have its own disk caching anyway. But in theory a bigger cache speeds up repeated access to the same data location.

Seems to me, the bigger cache should be put on media storage.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by deadtoaster2

Seems to me, the bigger cache should be put on media storage.

I'd disagree with that, media is inherently a streaming/sequential read scenario, cache's help primarilly with accessing smaller files.


Of course the HDD isn't used for anything AFIAK on the client, so from that perspective it wouldn't make any difference.

[dvd_maniac]

@ CPA

If you put your media files on your Client machine and then use that as an "Import Folder" then when you try to play them they will be streamed to the SageTV server and then streamed back to the Client.
Just put the 160GB in your SageTV Server machine if you have room. Thus avoiding the network traffic and possible bottleneck if you record in HQ or have low network bandwidth.

[CPA]

Actually, I was planning on storing xvid rips of TV DVDs on the extra space of the sage client and playing them from that hard drive as well. The wife and I like to watch sitcoms before bed. But I digress. Isn't it better to have a two drive system so one can place the page file on the second drive? Would that help acheive glitch free playback from DVDs, Xvids or not really have any effect?

Actually, I could really use some advice on how to split my hard drives and how to partition them including pagefile/temp file, etc. These are the drives I have to split up between three machines, 1 server and 2 clients:

WD/80GB/7200/8MB/SATA
WD/1600GB/7200/8MB/IDE
WD/250GB/7200/8MB/SATA
Samsung/40GB/5400/2MB/IDE
Seagate/10GB/5400/512KB
Seagate/30GB/7200/2MB/IDE
Seagate/80GB/7200/2MB/IDE

The systems are all going to have fresh copies of WIndows XP Pro. I plan to use one drve just for Sage recording and format it with 64k blocks. I do hope to back up systems using Ghost 2003. Only looking to store Sage shows (SDTV aand HDTV by firewire) and ripped xvids.

Server:
MSI Neo 4 Platinum
AMD64 3500+
1GB Patriot RAM
Leadtek 6600gt

Bedroom Client:
HP Pavillion xt915
P4 Celeron 1.0 Ghz
512MB RAM
XFX 5200

Den Client:
Asus Mobo
P3 866 Mgz
512 RAM
XFX 5200

What drives would you put with what system and how would you partition them? For instance is the baby 10GB worth using as a page drive on the server or is the 512MB cache to small to make it worth while? Any advice would be geatly appreciated.

[mdmint]

Question(s): Do you currently have a Sage system up and running? What is your output scenario? Normally for Sage the Client needs the "horsepower" for playback while the Server needs ample storage but little CPU since encoding done on the PVR cards themselves. Looks like your plan is for the Server the have the fastest CPU & video card, why? Will the Sage Server be actually running Sage for playback or being a Sage Server to feed Sage Clients? Your Clients actually only need enough HD space for OS and Sage Client, if they're going to be actual HTPC Clients.

[ben_95sl1]

if the clients are solely used as clients, then there should be no big need to have more hard drive space then what is required for windows xp to run and sagetv to be installed....which is easily under 4gb. In order to access stuff on any computer/client at any time, it is best to have the server computer have all the pvr card(s) AND ALL the media storage and be powered 24/7. I would put the 2 smallest drives in the clients and all the big ones in the main server system. If you can't fit all of them in there or need more power, you can add external powered 3.5" usb enclosures.

I was even considering avoiding hard drives entirely and getting them to boot from the network...but that looked like to much of a challenge.

and mdmint's points are quite valid....if possible dedicate an adequate, low power system as a server. I use my server for games and encoding as well currently, but will eventually turn a via c3 system into the server so it doesn't use so much power.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by ben_95sl1

I was even considering avoiding hard drives entirely and getting them to boot from the network...but that looked like to much of a challenge.

I'm a big fan of using laptop HDDs in clients, since there's no need for storage, and since the slightly slower speed won't impact performance, the fact that they use very little power (low heat) and are essentaily silent are huge benefits IMO. Only downside is that they are somewhat pricey on a $/gb level.

[mdmint]

Originally Posted by stanger89

I'm a big fan of using laptop HDDs in clients, since there's no need for storage, and since the slightly slower speed won't impact performance, the fact that they use very little power (low heat) and are essentaily silent are huge benefits IMO. Only downside is that they are somewhat pricey on a $/gb level.

True, pricey if $/Gb is the factor. But since as you noted don't need much storage for Client smaller laptop HDs can be had for less than $40 inc shipping. So from a quiet low power point of view who gives a rip if it's $3 or $4 bucks a Gig!

[stanger89]

Oh, yeah, $40 is a bargain for silence In fact when I rebuild my HTPC (or build a second) I'm seriously considering the Gigabyte iRAM, thow a couple GB of ram in that bad boy, install the apps to a network share, and good to go. Can't beat solid state for silence (usually)

[CPA]

mdmint:
Sorry, I was not very clear. By server I mean the machine that has the tuners and is capturing through the main Sage software. This pc is also used for playback at my living room HDTV. I do not have a dedicated server. This pc is housed in an Antec Sonata case with the Truepower 380 power supply and one case fan (back). Will this setup support 4 drives and not overwhelm the power supply or create too much heat? Would I need to change power supplies and/or add a case fan? Would it be wise to treat this pc as a server (multiple drives)?

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by CPA

Will this setup support 4 drives and not overwhelm the power supply or create too much heat?

Well, I've got 10 drives hanging off a 300W Fortron PSU.

Would I need to change power supplies and/or add a case fan?

When you're talking HDDs, more fans is almost always better than less.

Would it be wise to treat this pc as a server (multiple drives)?

I'm not sure what you mean by "treat as server" but I've found that it's really nice (at least, I'd say necessary for me), that if you've got more than a drive or two, to have a "dedicate" server off in another room, and then use "thin" clients for all the TVs. Basically it's relatively easy to keep most stuff cool and quiet in a PC, except the HDDs. Those things make a decent amount of noise on their own, and the more you have the better the airflow. It's kind of an exponential thing, the more drives you add, you need exponentially more cooling, so you end up with exponentially more noise. The reason is that, unlike most other components, there's no really efficient way to cool drives.

Anyway, just some thoughts.

[mattdcknsn]

Originally Posted by CPA

Isn't it better to have a two drive system so one can place the page file on the second drive? Would that help acheive glitch free playback from DVDs, Xvids or not really have any effect?

The page file doesnt need to be on another HD, it only needs to be on another partition. You can make a 512 MB partition and dedicate that for the page file. That will give you just as good performance as putting the page file on another drive.

[stanger89]

Page file won't make a bit of difference, since you should never hit it. You shouldn't even need to run one. Note that applies mainly to a dedicated HTPC where memory usage is pretty predicatable, and you can make sure you have enough RAM (512MB should be plenty).

If you're going to run other stuff, "normal PC" type stuff, you'll definitely want a pagefile though.

[ben_95sl1]

Originally Posted by stanger89

I'm a big fan of using laptop HDDs in clients, since there's no need for storage, and since the slightly slower speed won't impact performance, the fact that they use very little power (low heat) and are essentaily silent are huge benefits IMO. Only downside is that they are somewhat pricey on a $/gb level.

yeah, if I had the money, that makes a lot of sense...but since hard drive access is minimal after boot up, I don't find it too bad with a client (depends on what you find acceptable). I've got a hand me down seagate 7200rpm scsi in my bedroom and it is silly loud when seeking and I've got it fully suspended with oring cord. But after bootup, it hardly ever seeks, so it's pretty good.

[stanger89]

I'm not even talking about seeks, in my HTPC, my 3.5" WD (200GB) was by far the loudest thing, just spinning.

[nielm]

Originally Posted by mattdcknsn

You can make a 512 MB partition and dedicate that for the page file. That will give you just as good performance as putting the page file on another drive.

um, actually no -- that will give the same performance as being on the same partition (unless your partition and pagefile are very very fragmented). The performance benefits of a separate drive for a pagefile is that the OS can be reading+writing from one drive, whilst paging on another...

However, the paging drive should be fast -- an old 10Gig drive is likely to be a lot slower than a modern 100Gig...

Anyway, as Stanger says: you really don't want to be paging *at all* during playback...

[Kanati]

one word for pagefile if you have the resources to do it... ramdisk...

[paulbeers]

Can someone explain to me why anyone here even worries about their Pagefile?!??! If you are needing a pagefile then what drive your pagefile is on is the least of your concerns!!! I can't see how playback would at all be fluid if you are hitting a pagefile no matter what hard drive it is on. When I first built my HTPC I was only using 192 mb of ram with winxp pro and it could not play back worth *crap*.