OnBoard Drive vs File Server

[Myth2Sage]

Since I am completely re-vamping my HTPC system, I have a couple questions.

My previous Sage MB was a P4PE and I used a RAID-1 setup.

Well, the new MB does not have RAID. So, I was thinking that I could install the large (120-GIG) HDs in my LINUX box, set them up as a RAID and use them as storage for the video files. Then connect the Linux box to the New Sage Server via LAN.

I see several advantages to this.

One. Less noise with only 1 small boot HD running.

Two. Less heat issues.

Three. Smaller case.

Would there be any issues that would prevent the SAGE Server using a mapped drive instead of a local ONBOARD drive??


M2S

[ckron]

Just out of curiosity, why were you running RAID 1?

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the problem with the mapped drive is the chance of it becoming disconnected. If it does, you will lose all data on the files in the mapped drive. This is the problem with not keeping data about the files embedded in the files.

[fidget]

Originally posted by Myth2Sage
...
Would there be any issues that would prevent the SAGE Server using a mapped drive instead of a local ONBOARD drive??


M2S

I know that some people have successfully used external storage, but the biggest limitation that I can see is the size of your pipe to that device. A standard MPEG2 stream is about 8 Mb/s so a 100baseT network could become the bottleneck if you have enough streams (it should be able to handle 8 streams, so it may not be much of a bottleneck).

[krutaw]

Originally posted by fidget
I know that some people have successfully used external storage, but the biggest limitation that I can see is the size of your pipe to that device. A standard MPEG2 stream is about 8 Mb/s so a 100baseT network could become the bottleneck if you have enough streams (it should be able to handle 8 streams, so it may not be much of a bottleneck).

Well, you're right, it all depends on how many streams he's gonna have going. However, speaking as someone that uses a networked approach to file storage, I must say that I've had very few problems that have been caused by the network bottleneck. Specifically, I have a client, a server, a file server and everything is connected via 100baseT network. It runs very smoothly, though I did run a system for awhile using a nas device (very choppy ).

Anyway, it really depends on how many clients are going to be using the network at the same time, and what else that network has to be used for. Yes, it does tax the switch that the machines are connected to, but it hasn't been an issue here so far.

[mdmint]

Originally posted by Myth2Sage
Since I am completely re-vamping my HTPC system, I have a couple questions.

My previous Sage MB was a P4PE and I used a RAID-1 setup.

Well, the new MB does not have RAID. So, I was thinking that I could install the large (120-GIG) HDs in my LINUX box, set them up as a RAID and use them as storage for the video files. Then connect the Linux box to the New Sage Server via LAN.

I see several advantages to this.

One. Less noise with only 1 small boot HD running.

Two. Less heat issues.

Three. Smaller case.

Would there be any issues that would prevent the SAGE Server using a mapped drive instead of a local ONBOARD drive??


M2S

Networked storage is "real world" reality of how things are done all the time. I would not use any form of wireless for network storage however, too susceptible to getting hit by outside signals like cordless phones and getting knocked off.

Bandwidth wise for a few streams a hardwired 100base network is fine. However, do NOT anticipate being able to ever have 100Mb/s (200Mb/s duplex) usage. That is the theoretical limit which in real usage estmate at best 50% and more like 1/3 capcity need when designing. If concerned 1Gb nics and routers have gotten very afordable. Under $30 for PCI nic and under $80 for 5 port switch. Better new sysbrds even have 1Gb built in. Clients could stay 100base connected to 100base switch which would be connect to 1Gbase switch which would be connected to Sage Server and storage units and any other units you want higher file transfer capabilities. My setup combines 100base, 1Gbase & 108Mbs wireless no problems.

Main HTPC wise (thanks for the idea Stranger89) a laptop 2.5" works wonders for HD quietness and less HD heat. I still have two HDs in my main Client: main boot 2.5" 20G HD and 2nd cheapo (paid $37 inc shippintg) 20G regular size on other channel I use to ghost main. I have power options set to turn HDs off @3min so both only running for first 3min of HTPC power on. And once up both are usually off most of the time.

[Myth2Sage]

All great comments. Thanx.

I do have a 100BaseT Hardwired Hub so wireless issues are not an issue.

RAID-1 or RAID-0 are the only options open to me with the P4PE MB. I don't know what RAID options are available thru Linux FEDORA yet.

As for bottlenecking, I plan on having one server and one, possibly 2, clients on the LAN.

Again, thanx for all the great comments.


M2S

[mdmint]

Originally posted by Myth2Sage
All great comments. Thanx.

I do have a 100BaseT Hardwired Hub so wireless issues are not an issue.

M2S

Hub or did you mean switch? Different animals. Hub limited to TOTAL 100Mb all ports send or receive combined. Switch 200Mb per port duplex mode. If you really meant Hub, I'd strongly consider replacing it with a switch. 100base switches are now dirt cheap, can be had for less than $20.

[Myth2Sage]

Originally posted by mdmint
Hub or did you mean switch? Different animals. Hub limited to TOTAL 100Mb all ports send or receive combined. Switch 200Mb per port duplex mode. If you really meant Hub, I'd strongly consider replacing it with a switch. 100base switches are now dirt cheap, can be had for less than $20.

I guess it's a hub.


ACCTON CheetaHub Power 3016A



M2S

UPDATE:

CheetaHub Power-EH3008A/EH3016A dual-speed Stackable Hubs provide the quickest method of upgrading your network to Fast Ethernet. There's no need to replace an existing network infrastructure. Just add Accton's dual-speed hubs to link any new Fast Ethernet devices into your current network. These dual-speed hubs bring you the immediate performance advantages of Fast Ethernet at an incremental cost. What's more, these stackable hubs break Fast Ethernet's two-hub cascade barrier, allowing you to link up to six hubs via the built-in stack ports (using any combination of these hub models). These CheetaHubs provide an effective solution for expanding Ethernet and Fast Ethernet networks at a modest price. Up to six units can be stacked together, supporting up to 96 users. To interconnect the 10 and 100 Mbps segments, just add an EH3008A-SW or EH3016A-SW unit to the stack. For critical applications, an additional hub that supports the switching function can be included in the stack for ...

Hmmmmmm It retails for $432.00. I picked it up at a computer show for $50. Guess I got a good deal, eh?

[Crowdx42]

Hi,
my advice would have to be, run SageTV 2 on the server box and also all the storage on the same box, then use the client on a small machine (maybe lapop if you can afford that as mdmint said) where you watch tv. This eliminates the network problems with losing connections etc. and also reduces the network usage to just client traffic.
Works great for me. This solution also leaves the option of 2 machines running multiple encoder cards (different PVR 250 revisions etc) and you will still have all your storage local on the Sage TV machine.
Patrick

[Myth2Sage]

Originally posted by Crowdx42
Hi,
my advice would have to be, run SageTV 2 on the server box and also all the storage on the same box, then use the client on a small machine (maybe lapop if you can afford that as mdmint said) where you watch tv. This eliminates the network problems with losing connections etc. and also reduces the network usage to just client traffic.
Works great for me. This solution also leaves the option of 2 machines running multiple encoder cards (different PVR 250 revisions etc) and you will still have all your storage local on the Sage TV machine.
Patrick

Thanx, Patrick.

Unfortuanatly, the machine I had planned on using as the file server is a Linux Box (Fedora).

Unless Sage has a Linux version out there? hehehehehe

But my setup is not written in stone yet. Your suggestion is a good one and I can see some real benefits to it.

Thanx again.

M2S

[mdmint]

FYI, I was referring to little laptop 2.5" HD in normal HTPC, not a laptop itself as primary HTPC Client.

[Crowdx42]

Oooppss... did think a laptop was a tad expensive
On the Sage server option, building a dedicate computer for this would be quite inexpensive, box, board, cpu and memory. The hard drives would be the same you would use in the linux box. Box $30, cpu and board $110, memory $50, video card $30. Total price $220 plus tax and shipping. No monitor would be needed or cd drive (could swap one in for the install).
Would leave you with a dedicated box and not have to worry about screwing it up working with other programs.
Patrick

[Myth2Sage]

Originally posted by mdmint
FYI, I was referring to little laptop 2.5" HD in normal HTPC, not a laptop itself as primary HTPC Client.

I was wondering about that.


M2S