If i was to purchase this server:

win2k
pentium III dual 1.0ghz
2GB ecc RAM
3 80GB Hard Drives

Would the server be able to handle the 80GB's x3 full to capacity with 900GB of Bandwidth through the server(i know this is extrememe, but i would not want to try and resale what cant be done, and this is what i have alloted)

So would the server be able to perfrom with the above specifications?

i would go with scsi as they do not suck down the cpu.

No way, not with that CPU power - I even doubt you will be able to handle 900 gigs a month

sorry, didn't see the dual

should as long as it isn't too resource intensive (ie databases/asp)

no they just suck down my money :(

The standard drive would not do you think under this configuration with 2GB of RAM?

What about possibley If I had a more powerful dual processor cpu?

i'd stick with those dual cpus. drop some more money and get the scsi's believe me a 80 gb ide is pretty intensive though depending on what you're doing. so 3 would probly be over board. unless you did 4 ide's (they would all have to be the exact drive) and raid0+1'en them

The server will be for hosting purposes,
not many database features i would imagen.

No forums, porn, etc.. would be allowed...

I thought it could handle it, but guess i was wrong..

Okay, so go with the scsi? GOD i could purchase more servers ..lol they are so high, is there any other solution?
Other than going with 1U server with one drive...

900 Gigs a month is less than 10 Mbps. Although I'd rather be using FreeBSD on any high-volume server, a well configured Pentium Pro 200 with 256 megs of RAM can push 10 Mbps+. It also doesn't really matter how much data you have on the machine, it matters how often you access it. In a moderate environment, you can get away with IDE. In a high volume environment, you need to really consider how disks are accessed. With SCSI, the more drives you can split your information across, the better. This is because SCSI drives seek and read in parallel. If you went with 6 36 GB SCSI drives, you'd be even better off. Also, in a very high volume environment, a high-end hardware RAID card can further offload the burden from your primary CPU.

A server isn't really taxed bandwidth-wise until it is doing over 40 Mbps. What hits it hard is all the "other" stuff your server does. Also, the more extras you load onto your webserver (PhP, SSI, FrontPage, etc) the larger the RAM overhead of an individual child-process (of the webserver) is, and the less simultaneous processes you can run without swapping. In most cases, this is your limiting factor. IE: Max RAM on the machine less overhead, divided by the typical size of a web process == how many simultaneous web processes you can run. A stripped down HTML server can have an individual process size of as low as about 200k. A beefed up "all the extras" webserver can have individual processes as large as 7 Megabytes or more.

Of course, most end-customers nowadays don't care about this stuff, and most operators don't know this stuff. But if you really want to tune a server, look at everything you're running, and eliminate things you aren't using or can live without. Its just like configuring a kernel--you wouldn't leave driver support for a Cyclades multi-port serial card in there if you're never going to use one. Same goes with web servers.

Anyhow, I'm beginning to go off-topic into more of a how to tune your web server rant, so I'll cut myself off. If anyone has any questions about tuning a webserver, let me know, or start a thread and PM me in the right direction.

IDE RAID is just fine... i used to have a few boxes just like those... 'cept 1GB ECC RAM... did over 20Mbps each... they were nice... n the loads stayed pretty low too... mostly hosting regular sites... but then again, i had dedicated database engines too... heh

i noticed Winblows is actually better than FreeBSD at handling large amounts of HTTP/FTP file downloads... (i m not sure of the comparison at html pages/etc, but files, winblows is better)...

I would shave down the Memory to 1 GB (you don't need 2). Depending on the total system and what you are using it for, that W2K system should be able to handle ~ 11,550 GB of bandwidth without any major strain.

Hope that helps!

ya i would go with win2k adv server. though those p pros 200 are nice i like the p3 1ghz in a dual configuration

ya i would go with win2k adv server. You really don't need Advanced Server unless you are Clustering or Load Balancing (that's about the only major difference)

true but if oyu sit in my seat server isn't that much cheaper then adv server jsut my thoughts.

But why spend the extra money :)

So 2GB of RAM would be excessive?

Well 10Mbps will be purchase, but honestly i doubt it will run up to 10Mbps, just a worst case senario.

But i will be running two machines of this type and they will be clustered together. More machines will be added later of the same type, this in mind.

Does the configuration still work?
Or what do you suggest...

Basically im trying to maximize one server as ive found this to be more cost effective so long as i can stay away from scsi drives, then it becomes WAY too costly...

scsi drives are extremely expensive, i could get a higher processor, would this solve the issue..

Im not worried about one server, im pretty sure it will be fine, but when im running 10 of these 2U servers I dont want to go and try to fork out an upgrade that will cost me an arm and leg.

Want to save money in the long run?

Centralize storage with a fibre array.

fibre drives are amazingly cheap now, you'll just need to invest in the other aspects of setting up an array (controller, host cards, etc)

You can build a fibre array for fairly cheap (under $2k for around 360 gigs of storage)

fibre can do 100MB/s (1GBps) and newer cards can do 200MB/s (2GBps).

Then you just attach the servers to a fibre channel switch/hub as you go.

its not that much more. anyways ntohing to argue over

dual p3 should do you good i'd go with scsi's like i said earlier but since its too expensive for you. i'd do a ide raid0+1 this would mirror the two drives and put them togethor i guess you could say so basicly you have 4 80gb'ers. you end up with 1 160 gb'er that was extremly fast AND was backed up very good way to go. though ide's suck on the cpu so ya a faster cpu would help some.

What type of content are you serving (static, dynamic, etc)? For the added price you would pay for W2K advanced server, I would suggest going with W2K server and get yourself a Alteon hardware load balancer. They are really inexpensive (on eBay).

Well my original thinking was that the extra 1GB of RAM, making 2GB total would be more than enough to offset the fact that IDE drive would lag cpu,, was i wrong to think this???

The scsi is alot more expensive then ide and is definately too high right now in my opinion.

Raid can be pricey too,,
Why i was trying to up the RAM another GB

If i took each processor up 500mhz and had 2GB of RAM, would this be efficient? It would STILL be cheaper then the scsi drives..

The memory will not increase software RAID performance.

im talking hardware raid ide raid cards aren't that expensive.

Giving your experience levels im sure you guys know what your talking about,,,

its just to me its hard to imaged an dual 1ghz cpu with 2GB of RAM that cant handle 3 80GB drives,,

I guess im thinking home pc though,, dont know..lol

FreeBSD baby! up to 50% better performance with the tcp/ip stack :D

Doesn't handle mysql ALL that well tho :(

If i switched the config. to freebsd would it really increase performance.. explain this to me please...

Better handling of packets - you will see an increased performance for internet traffic.

wanted win2k so i could get helm installed down the road, if its every released!!!

But i need this configuration for reasons.. but i cant find a solution for the drives with out going over limit.. oh well, no good i guess..
could anyone suggest a config. that would allow me to maximize server potential profit with multiple drives etc. without sacrificing performance?

Everything i come up with is cheaper per Userver, im looking for 2U's

How about this option...
same system specs as before but with dual xeon processors and win2kpro,

by the way is helm compatible with all windows such as pro and nt, or only certain versions?

Put freebsd on all the servers and use Hsphere. I heard good things about them. Since your getting many servers you can do quite well. Look at www.psoft.net I think there is a setup fee then 4.95 for each user account.

I have seen some 1U servers take 4 harddrives. I think the WD harddrives with 8MB cache would do better than normal eide. Try www.storagereview.com for a review.

I know this is a first but...

i dont like hsphere.. lol,,
Im waiting on helm,

Concerning the drives the only two options this manufacturer offers is standard IDE and SCSI, do you know of some comapnies that custom build with more options??

http://appro.com/product.html

These servers look nice. I never tried them though. 4 harddrives in a 1U

I heard good things about Super Micro Servers as well. www.acmemicro.com seems to be a reseller with good pricing
http://8anet.com/merchant.ihtml?id=14&step=2