Ok, so, this may be a bit difficult to explain/show and get some GOOD input on.
First, below is a crude drawup of my network as a whole.
Now, as you can see, I have pushed everything onto one single machine known as Server-2, and it's starting to choke rather badly, not because of the CPU or RAM limitations for what it is doing, but because of the disks, and network feed.
My current plants are to make the rest of my network 10/100/1000 + 1x 10Gbit feed on one of the switches.
Now, I stream a crap-ton of 1080p HD content all over the home, that is the most basic network map I could come up with, but I have several more machines on the network that stream, and that also perform backups to Server-2. Needless to say, some files can cause enough data through put when streaming that it takes the whole 1Gbit feed for it self, at this point I can forget about doing anything else on the network for the most part, ESPECIALLY if someone upstream (closer to the router) starts streaming, as most the network is stuck behind a 100Mbps pipe.
As you can tell, this also causes issues when accessing the internet.
Now, why have I pushed so much into one machine? Well, it's due to electrical costs... I can't afford to be powering several machines when one is, for the most part, capable of running everything when I can use VM's.
Now, here is what I need to accomplish.
1: Server-2 NEEDS to be rebuilt entirely, with MASSIVE storage options, but still be highly efficient, and not pull too much power. It still needs to be high powered for what I am doing.
I also need a board that has x4-x8 slots instead of x1, good controllers are hard to find at x1, and x1 bogs down arrays too much. I need the ability to have 3-5 arrays, all arrays NEED to be Raid-6. I also need this server to have 1x 10Gbit port
Please remember, the goal is to keep it as low powered as possible, while performing previous tasks, but expanding upon how capable it is in my network.
2: I need a new switch, needs to have one 10Gbit port that is compatible with the 10Gbit port on Server-2
3: I need to replace Server-1 with a very low powered system, but will have the ability of having 10-20TB worth of storage. This system would be nothing more than a location for the entire network to back up to on a weekly basis, removing that role for the most part from Server-2.
Suggestions? Ideas? I have around $9,000 going into this project, but, the cheaper it is, the better I am off, just remember the goals, large amounts of storage that need to be capable of putting out for every device easily on my network, Server-2 needs to have all its current roles figured into the upgrade path.
Also, SERVER-2 will need a new case, potentially in the future I will have to have upwards of 20 SATA/SAS drives in it, same goes for SERVER-1.
I have been going over this for months trying to figure out the most cost effective way in the long run. Don't get me wrong, Server-2 is great as is, but the motherboard lacks in the area of me not being able to get GOOD SATA controllers added in along with a faster NIC. If the board on this rig had x4 or x8 slots I would be fine.
Just remember, low cost, low powered, but high performance if at all possible guys. Discrete GPU is not needed provided integrated can handle todays 1080P video easily.
If you wish to help, try to list what machine you build out in detail along with the name of the machine according to my diagram. Please provide a reason for it all in the end guys... Because this is such a big task and I have fallen behind on the times when it comes to building a machine that has to meet these kinds of goals.
Assume that at any given point in time, all machines on the network could be accessing the media drive array for reads and reads only. No one is permitted to write except the server, so read performance is a must. But write performance is a must on the backup arrays.
Don't be afraid to restructure my network, just note that between the two switches is around 130 foot, if you can put more machines in the network at a lower price along with reducing power consumption or keeping it the same, then do so. I expect consumption to go up due to the increase in arrays some.