Does CPU power need to scale up with size of pool?

[Fox]

Does more storage mean I need a more powerful CPU?

I see there is a recommendation that for each TB you should have a GB of memory. But I don't see much on the CPU power.

I plan to use encryption and compression. Maybe transcoding.. I would be a single user, but I may end up with a lot of drives in the system (I am looking at a 24 drive case).

I am also looking at Xeon E5 processors because I can get motherboards that allow more than 32GB of memory, but I want to make sure I would have enough power if I eventually fill up my 24 drive case, particularly if I eventually use SSD drives and 10Gbe to put some zip in the transfer speeds.

Thanks

 

[cyberjock]

CPU power isn't particularly important unless you enable features that are CPU intensive like encryption, compression, deduplication. Or if oyu plan to run jails that need CPU power.
Generally, if you recognize how much RAM you need you'll end up with a CPU that is modern enough that processing power itself isn't a problem. It's the people with 10 year old Pentium 4s that are clueless as P4s can't get you much RAM and are old enough to often be too slow to satisfy the owner.

 

[Fox]

Is there a rule of thumb? Sounds like a Xeon E3 is plenty enough no matter what size the array is. I intend to get a chip with hardware AES, so the encryption shouldn't be an issue. The compression could be I suppose, but from what you're saying I will have enough CPU with any late model Xeon..

Thanks

 

[cyberjock]

Yep. Compression can really hit performance, even on the fastest CPUs. gzip is particularly harsh and plenty of people use it and complain about their 30MB/sec speeds. But unless you choose an overly agressive compression scheme you should be fine.