Upgrading FreeNAS Plex Rig, to ECC or not to ECC?

[kcgoatboy]

So as I'm building up my HD media library and who knows how 4k will be handled for streaming in home, I've decided to upgrade my rig. My current rig direct plays fine but if I need to transcode it doesn't have enough umph. A little background about my needs.

1) Low TDP as it will be on 24/7.
2) Plex transcode 2 1080 streams or 1 4k stream.
3) Store media files, movies and pics.
4) 4 WD Reds max in a 2x2 mirror. I'm not needing a raid setup as I can always recreate my collection and have the pics stored offsite also.
5) mini itx mobo.

So I'm trying to decide between to paths.

1) Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5
Pros: ECC memory compatible, Lower TDP, can get used pretty cheap
Cons: More expensive mobo, headless

2) Intel Core i7 6700T https://www.amazon.com/Intel-i7-670...484319486&sr=8-3&keywords=intel+core+i7+6700T
Pros: Cheaper mobo, intergrated graphics
Cons: Higher TDP, non ECC, new more expensive

My main question besides which route should I go is, does using ECC memory give you any benefit if you're only using a mirror hdd setup?

 

[Spearfoot]

Always use ECC!

FreeNAS is run headless, so you don't need the integrated graphics. And a Xeon will blow the socks off a Core i7 when it comes to performance as a server.

 

[Chris Moore]

So as I'm building up my HD media library and who knows how 4k will be handled for streaming in home, I've decided to upgrade my rig. My current rig direct plays fine but if I need to transcode it doesn't have enough umph. A little background about my needs.

1) Low TDP as it will be on 24/7.
2) Plex transcode 2 1080 streams or 1 4k stream.
3) Store media files, movies and pics.
4) 4 WD Reds max in a 2x2 mirror. I'm not needing a raid setup as I can always recreate my collection and have the pics stored offsite also.

<snip>

My main question besides which route should I go is, does using ECC memory give you any benefit if you're only using a mirror hdd setup?

I am able to transcode three streams with my configuration (see below), so I am sure the more modern Xeon you referenced will be adequate. My concern is why you are limiting your disk I/O by only writing to two drives. That is going to be more of a bottleneck than the CPU.
Disk I/O has been the slow point in computer architecture for YEARS and the way you speed it up is to spread the data across many disks. That is the reason (not just fault tolerance) that servers have many disks.

Also, ZFS uses RAM (memory) as a buffer for all read and write activity to the disks. This speeds the system up and makes it more responsive on small or frequently accessed files. It doesn't have a big impact on larger media files that are only accessed occasionally. The thing is, if an error occurs in RAM, it can cause an unrecoverable cascade of errors in your data. It is always, always, advised to use ECC memory with ZFS. No exceptions. If you don't, it is purely up to you, but it would not be the safe course.

 

[wblock]

Get ECC and the Xeon, but not the "L" version. It is not more power-efficient, just power-limited.

 

[SweetAndLow]

You want a more powerful CPU but the 2 you listed are specifically designed to be less powerful. Get the normal e3-1240 and you will be happy as a clam. When it's idling it will use exactly the same amount of power as the power limited CPUs. But when you need all the performance you can get for transcoding it will actually be able to handle it.

Mirrors are a perfectly good layout for your disks and will probably perform better than 4 disks in a raidz2.

Lastly use ecc!

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[Arwen]

Note that 2 x 2 in a mirror is RAID, just called RAID-10.

ZFS simply calls it 2 Mirrored vDevs. If you start with 2 Mirrored vDevs, then all data
will be written across both Mirrored vDevs. But, if you start with 1 Mirrored vDev, and
add a second at a future time, only newly written data will be potentially be written to the
second Mirror vDev. ZFS space balances written data.

You could start with a pair of larger disks in a Mirror. Today, most disks can saturate
Gigabit Ethernet all by themselves, (>110Mega Bytes per second). Then add another
pair as more space is needed.

 

[MatthewSteinhoff]

4 WD Reds max in a 2x2 mirror. I'm not needing a raid setup as I can always recreate my collection and have the pics stored offsite also.

If you aren't concerned with the safety and integrity of your data, why bother with mirrors? You'll get more disk space if you just stripe them. Or maybe split the difference and go RAIDZ1?

Cheers,
Matt

 

[kcgoatboy]

Always use ECC! :)

FreeNAS is run headless, so you don't need the integrated graphics. And a Xeon will blow the socks off a Core i7 when it comes to performance as a server.

There was one time after a 9.10 upgrade I could not log into the gui, services and plugins weren't starting and I couldn't connect to the remote terminal so it was much easier for me to revert to a previous version with my monitor and kb hooked up. But yes generally headless isn't that big of a deal for me.

I am able to transcode three streams with my configuration (see below), so I am sure the more modern Xeon you referenced will be adequate. My concern is why you are limiting your disk I/O by only writing to two drives. That is going to be more of a bottleneck than the CPU.
Disk I/O has been the slow point in computer architecture for YEARS and the way you speed it up is to spread the data across many disks. That is the reason (not just fault tolerance) that servers have many disks.

Note that 2 x 2 in a mirror is RAID, just called RAID-10.

ZFS simply calls it 2 Mirrored vDevs. If you start with 2 Mirrored vDevs, then all data
will be written across both Mirrored vDevs. But, if you start with 1 Mirrored vDev, and
add a second at a future time, only newly written data will be potentially be written to the
second Mirror vDev. ZFS space balances written data.

You could start with a pair of larger disks in a Mirror. Today, most disks can saturate
Gigabit Ethernet all by themselves, (>110Mega Bytes per second). Then add another
pair as more space is needed.

If you aren't concerned with the safety and integrity of your data, why bother with mirrors? You'll get more disk space if you just stripe them. Or maybe split the difference and go RAIDZ1?

Cheers,
Matt

In my current nas box I have 2 6TB WD Reds (mirrored). So far I/O hasn't been my limiting factor, it's my cruddy Realtek Lan. There is currently only one streaming devicein my house. I'm not 100% not concerned about data integrity. I'd guess I'll classify it as the reason why i'm doing mirrored is for continuity. If/when one drive fails, I can still access and use my data. A $230+ replacement drive might take some time for the boss (wife) to approve a replacement. When I run out of space the plan is to get another 2 drives and create another vdev. I know this mirrored setup in not the most secure or efficient but seems to be the most cost effect solution for what is just basically a media server for me. Plus with my current rig not using ECC I didn't want to further test my luck running a raid setup.

Get ECC and the Xeon, but not the "L" version. It is not more power-efficient, just power-limited.

You want a more powerful CPU but the 2 you listed are specifically designed to be less powerful. Get the normal e3-1240 and you will be happy as a clam. When it's idling it will use exactly the same amount of power as the power limited CPUs. But when you need all the performance you can get for transcoding it will actually be able to handle it.

Mirrors are a perfectly good layout for your disks and will probably perform better than 4 disks in a raidz2.

Lastly use ecc!

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

Some googling I had done in the past made me believe that FreeNas didn't always play nice with C-States and were not letting CPUs idle down as much as they could. Is this not really the case? I'm confident messing around in the bios and check the "Powered" box but I'm not confident with the terminal and FreeBSD so that's why I was looking more at the throttled CPUs rather than me worrying about tweaking freenas and making sure those setting load every time. My current system only draws 17W under load so looking at 80W cpus not know if I could reign them in was also why I was looking at the T and L cpus.

Thank you for everyone's input. After hearing what you all have been saying, If I go for a non "L" Xeon, is it possible/relatively easy with a combination of bios settings (yes I know mobo dependent) and FreeNAS configurations that I can throttle the CPU myself and make sure it idles properly? Currently when I need to transcode I turn on my desktop and start plex on that (still using my FreeNAS box as a file server in this case) and have my PC do the heavy lifting. I know the CPU passmark score for my desktop so I could find a max clockrate for my new nas box cpu that still gives me the same performance as my desktop. I want upgrade so my wife doesn't have to start my desktop and switch plex servers for just a handful of movies all while staying cost effective as much as I can.

My current nas box is running an AMD E-350 APU with a passmark score of 750+. For a file server and direct streaming machine it has been more than sufficient. When I need to transcode I use my desktop that has an overclocked Intel i5-3570K which has a passmark score of 9500+. Reading the Plex forms, to transcode a single 4k stream the target passmark score for the cpu should be 8000+. So yes while I want a more powerful cpu the Xeon E3-1240L (passmark right at 8000) or the Intel i7-6700T (passmark 9000) are not as powerful as the non "L" xeon versions, they should suite my needs and be much more powerful than my current AMD.[/QUOTE]

 

[carlos juan]

Never ever use freenas without ECC memory, it's calling for disaster otherwise.

Sent from my SM-P607T using Tapatalk

 

[SweetAndLow]

Never ever use freenas without ECC memory, it's calling for disaster otherwise.

Sent from my SM-P607T using Tapatalk

This isn't really true. You can use it without ecc and everything will be fine. ECC just makes a more stable system and will help in scenarios when ram goes bad.

 

[carlos juan]

This isn't really true. You can use it without ecc and everything will be fine. ECC just makes a more stable system and will help in scenarios when ram goes bad.

Yeah everything will be fine until disaster strikes, if you care about your data and understand how zfs works, you would never use non ecc, but hey, just my 2 cents here.

Sent from my SM-P607T using Tapatalk

 

[SweetAndLow]

Yeah everything will be fine until disaster strikes, if you care about your data and understand how zfs works, you would never use non ecc, but hey, just my 2 cents here.

Sent from my SM-P607T using Tapatalk

Again not really. Bad memory will cause all sorts of strange things but zfs will not act any different than any other system. You should use ecc and I'll always suggest it but terrible things will not happen and you should just be aware of the added risk.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk