Startup Server

[grimreeper132]

1 minute ago, Radiant said:

negative, none in austria only in germany and i only want to pay in bar and actually wanna see it in real before i buy

fair enough, I didn't care if I saw it first so the first time I saw it was when the server arrived, on a pallet, and which was also when I realised it was heavy as fuck and I could barely move it

[Radiant]

2 minutes ago, grimreeper132 said:

fair enough, I didn't care if I saw it first so the first time I saw it was when the server arrived, on a pallet, and which was also when I realised it was heavy as fuck and I could barely move it

i would do that if i had money, but me spending thousands in the last months on my boats and so on im broke

[grimreeper132]

2 minutes ago, Radiant said:

i would do that if i had money, but me spending thousands in the last months on my boats and so on im broke

I only spent £70 (80 euro roughly) on it so it wasn't that expensive at all, compared to what I got, and what I would of got brand new, so yea, I anit complaining about it.

[Oshino Shinobu]

23 minutes ago, Radiant said:

so what does that exactly mean?

It means that all but two of the ports on that switch will only allow up to 100 Mbps bandwidth. If it's going to be used to store data, this means that you're going to be capped at a maximum of 12Megabytes per second transfers, compared to the 120Megabytes per second you could get with a gigabit switch. 

[Radiant]

1 minute ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

It means that all but two of the ports on that switch will only allow up to 100 Mbps bandwidth. If it's going to be used to store data, this means that you're going to be capped at a maximum of 12Megabytes per second transfers, compared to the 120Megabytes per second you could get with a gigabit switch. 

 

1 minute ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

It means that all but two of the ports on that switch will only allow up to 100 Mbps bandwidth. If it's going to be used to store data, this means that you're going to be capped at a maximum of 12Megabytes per second transfers, compared to the 120Megabytes per second you could get with a gigabit switch. 

if i only get up to 50 Mbit down on my router, how can it go any higher? or is this something totally different

[Lurick]

19 minutes ago, Radiant said:

 

if i only get up to 50 Mbit down on my router, how can it go any higher? or is this something totally different

Well you get that for internet speed but local transfer speeds between computers on the local network that don't need internet access will be capped at 100Mb (12.5MB) speeds

[Radiant]

2 minutes ago, Lurick said:

Well you get that for internet speed but local transfer speeds between computers on the local network that don't need internet access will be capped at 100Mb (12.5MB) speeds

ohh ok

[Oshino Shinobu]

29 minutes ago, Radiant said:

 

if i only get up to 50 Mbit down on my router, how can it go any higher? or is this something totally different

That's internet speed, not local speed. You mentioned that it will be used to store things, in which case any transfers between the server and a PC on the local network will not rely on your internet speed, but rather your local network speed. Assuming the rest of your network is gigabit (standard for most modern hardware), adding this switch in would essentially decrease the local network performance of anything connect to it by a factor of 10. 

[grimreeper132]

On 21/02/2017 at 9:29 PM, Oshino Shinobu said:

That's internet speed, not local speed. You mentioned that it will be used to store things, in which case any transfers between the server and a PC on the local network will not rely on your internet speed, but rather your local network speed. Assuming the rest of your network is gigabit (standard for most modern hardware), adding this switch in would essentially decrease the local network performance of anything connect to it by a factor of 10. 

that is only true if the server it's self is able to send files over then network over 100mbps as due to it's age, and the fact it's probably going to get hard drives put in it, it's fastest speed it can transfer is about 50-100mbps, in which case it's not actually a bottleneck

[Oshino Shinobu]

1 minute ago, grimreeper132 said:

that is only true if the server it's self is able to send files over then network over 100mbps as due to it's age, and the fact it's probably going to get hard drives put in it, it's fastest speed it can transfer is about 50-100mbps, in which case it's not actually a bottleneck

Hard drives can transfer well over 100Mbps. Even if the server is only using SATA rev 1.0, the network is still likely to be the bottleneck, as it can do up to 1.5Gbps. If we assume OP uses regular SATA 3 drives like WD Blues, 100Mbps networking will limit the drives significantly. 

 

Here's a transfer from my NAS using WD Blue 5400RPM drives over a gigabit network. On a 100Mbps network it would be limited to a theoretical max of 12.5MB/s. 

 

 

Hell, here's what the transfer is like when I set the network to 100Mbps

 

 

The hard drives, if they're recent (which they should be, unless OP is using old drives too) are not going to be the limiting factor on a 100Mbps network, nor should the server itself. 

[grimreeper132]

1 minute ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

Hard drives can transfer well over 100Mbps. Even if the server is only using SATA rev 1.0, the network is still likely to be the bottleneck, as it can do up to 1.5Gbps. If we assume OP uses regular SATA 3 drives like WD Blues, 100Mbps networking will limit the drives significantly. 

 

Here's a transfer from my NAS using WD Blue 5400RPM drives over a gigabit network. On a 100Mbps network it would be limited to a theoretical max of 12.5MB/s. 

 

 

 

Hell, here's what the transfer is like when I set the network to 100Mbps

 

 

 

The hard drives, if they're recent (which they should be, unless OP is using old drives too) are not going to be the limiting factor on a 100Mbps network, nor should the server itself. 

they can, yes, but not when you use old ones (because you can't afford new ones) and yea if the OP does but I am assuming that the OP isn't as they are buying a cheap used server and have previously said that the budget isn't limitless and so I would imagine used hard drives are going to be used

[Oshino Shinobu]

1 minute ago, grimreeper132 said:

they can, yes, but not when you use old ones (because you can't afford new ones) and yea if the OP does but I am assuming that the OP isn't as they are buying a cheap used server and have previously said that the budget isn't limitless and so I would imagine used hard drives are going to be used

Even if OP does use used hard drives, you'd have to go pretty far back to find a drive that can't do over 12MB/s (like, over a decade kind of far back). I would expect OP to buy drives that are at least somewhat recent, even if they are used. Most used SATA 2 drives will still be bottlenecked by a 100Mbps link. 

 

If OP really is planning on going with old enough drives that are still not even capable of ATA-7 throughput, then yeah, 100Mbps wouldn't be a bottleneck, but I seriously doubt that will be the case. 

[grimreeper132]

1 minute ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

Even if OP does use used hard drives, you'd have to go pretty far back to find a drive that can't do over 12MB/s (like, over a decade kind of far back). I would expect OP to buy drives that are at least somewhat recent, even if they are used. Most used SATA 2 drives will still be bottlenecked by a 100Mbps link. 

 

If OP really is planning on going with old enough drives that are still not even capable of ATA-7 throughput, then yeah, 100Mbps wouldn't be a bottleneck, but I seriously doubt that will be the case. 

well, I have that with my NAS, mainly to the age of the drives (they are about7/8 yearsold) as they have slowed down over the years, so it possibly will affect him with drives which are less than a decade old