55 replies to this topic

[tinkererguy]

What about building WHS2011 box with Z68 Motherboard (like ASUS P8Z68-V PRO) at $300, with Intel Core i7-2600S (65 watts) $300?

I realize $600 sounds very steep. But consider this. I already an ATX case, memory and disk drives, and a reasonably efficient power supply.

So longevity (I'd like to get 4 years out of this rig) and efficiency are my primary concerns, as electricity costs over 4 years really add up (hundreds per year for Xeon servers, at 18 cents per kilowatt hour).

Hope I'm making a bit more sense now.

So, I've only begun to do a bit of research/shopping, my first time looking at building from the ground up in years, frankly.

The new Z68 based motherboards that begin to ship this May seem to be a possibly good choice for WHS 2011, replacing the short-lived H67 LGA1156 socket based Sandybridge motherboards from Jan 2011.

I'm looking for the following attributes, especially given it's an always-on device:

1) efficiency (with built in graphics)
2) ATX form factor, with many choices (many memory types can be used, many PCI slots)
3) decent SATA and USB3 flexibility (not a fan of adding eSATA cards or RAID cards, want to use USB3 to backup to external USB3 enclosure I have for off-site backup)
4) UEFI (should I wish to boot from 3TB someday)
5) a little more future proof, with newer LGA1155 socket (that replaces LGA1156 socket), not that it's likely I'll ever replace the CPU. Read more here:
http://www.tomshardw...8-28-intel-2600

For a review of an upcoming ASUS motherboard, read:
"Intel’s Z68 Approaches – ASUS P8Z68-V PRO Preview"
http://livetechnogui...-v-pro-preview/
so it would seem that the ASUS P8Z68-V PRO, which has the LGA1155 socket, and a non-NEC USB 3.0 controller, may be a good way to go (I've had issues with NEC).

Of course I'm fishing for alternative opinions on this as well, that's why I post here, of course. Particularly a motherboard with low watt burn when idle, yet has all the attributes I require.

According to Integrated Graphics Efficiency Results (admittedly a dated Jan 2011 review):
http://www.tomshardw...-nm,2831-8.html
it's clear to me Intel beats AMD for watt burn, especially when idle:
http://www.tomshardw...nm,2831-10.html
http://www.anandtech...-2100-tested/21

So now for the CPU, the only LGA1155 Core i5/i7 I spot with reasonable watt burn is the Core i5-2390T at 35 watts, or the Core i7-2xxxS series at 65 watts, according to this Core i3/i5/i7 overview site:
http://en.wikipedia....hitecture_based

Core i5-2390T at about $195 and 35 watts max:
Part # CM8062301002115
http://en.wikipedia.....22_.2832_nm.29
http://ark.intel.com...t.aspx?id=53448
$195 according to this Intel site:
http://ark.intel.com...arketSegment=DT

But it has only 2 actual cores and only 3.0MB of cache, and I may do some fairly heavy crunching with my WHS2011 someday and would like a bit more headroom.

So digging into the i7 series, there's only one i7 model at the low watt-burn end, it's the quad-core:
Core i7-2600S at about $300 and 65 watts max:
Part # CM8062300835604
http://en.wikipedia.....22_.2832_nm.29
http://ark.intel.com...t.aspx?id=52215

$300 retail according to this Intel site:
http://ark.intel.com...arketSegment=DT

but doesn't really appear to be shipping from anywhere quite yet, and here it shows $359 for example:
http://www.cdw.com/s...8M/2347906.aspx

So it would seem I have some weeks to mull this all over.

Opinions?

Edited by tinkererguy, 29 April 2011 - 10:34 AM.

[tinkererguy]

I may wind up booting the whole thing from a USB key withy ESXi 4.1U1 fyi, and then running WHS2011 in a VM, with excellent I/O speed to the drives (native RAID support not necessary).

Or I may wind up using WHS2011 native, and running VMs.

Either way, the Intel VT-d and VT-x features are important to me, and both processors I'm looking at appear to have it:
http://www.legionhar...y_bridge,2.html

Intel Virtualization Technology (VT-x)
Intel Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O (VT-d)

Edited by tinkererguy, 29 April 2011 - 10:32 AM.

[tinkererguy]

And I realize I'm limited to one physical CPU socket and 8GB of RAM with WHS2011, which is part of why I'm considering running ESXi 4.1U1 (I have a valid license for it) on this overkill system, to really leverage my always-on investment these next 4 years:
http://homeserversho...2011-recognize/

So yeah, it would appear I need to start poking around here again:
"VMware Compatibility Guide"
http://www.vmware.co...lity/search.php
and the Whitebox guides here:
http://www.vm-help.c...ebox_HCL.php#MB
http://ultimatewhite...com/motherboard

I realize my home-brew system won't be truly supported by VMware in any meaningful way, but this research is really just to look for potential show-stopper types of issues with the components I have and those I plan to purchase (I know my quad-port PCI Express gigabit card is supported, that's key).

Edited by tinkererguy, 29 April 2011 - 10:48 AM.

[diehard]

tinkererguy, If you really want 2 CPU's, you can use Small Business Server Essentials 2011. You get to backup 25 PC but loose the Silverlight web stuff but gain a 2nd CPU and more memory and Active Directory. All the WHS2011 addin should still work.

[Citezein]

I may wind up booting the whole thing from a USB key withy ESXi 4.1U1 fyi, and then running WHS2011 in a VM, with excellent I/O speed to the drives (native RAID support not necessary).

Or I may wind up using WHS2011 native, and running VMs.

Either way, the Intel VT-d and VT-x features are important to me, and both processors I'm looking at appear to have it:
http://www.legionhar...y_bridge,2.html

Intel Virtualization Technology (VT-x)
Intel Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O (VT-d)

The VT-d feature is only available in very few motherboards. I'm using it on an ESXi install using the Intel DQ67SW board, but most consumer boards don't support it, despite the CPU and chipset supporting the feature. Just do your research carefully.

Personally, your build seems overkill. You can spend $600, or you can spend $300. Personally, I'd spend $300 now and $300 in another three years for something much faster than your $600 now buys you. In fact, I did spend about $300 for the DQ67SW and i5-2400. Those two gave me four cores and a great bang for the buck.

[pcdoc]

What about building WHS2011 box with Z68 Motherboard (like ASUS P8Z68-V PRO) at $300, with Intel Core i7-2600S (65 watts) $300?

I realize $600 sounds very steep. But consider this. I already an ATX case, memory and disk drives, and a reasonably efficient power supply.

So longevity (I'd like to get 4 years out of this rig) and efficiency are my primary concerns, as electricity costs over 4 years really add up (hundreds per year for Xeon servers, at 18 cents per kilowatt hour).

Hope I'm making a bit more sense now.

So, I've only begun to do a bit of research/shopping, my first time looking at building from the ground up in years, frankly.

The new Z68 based motherboards that begin to ship this May seem to be a possibly good choice for WHS 2011, replacing the short-lived H67 LGA1156 socket based Sandybridge motherboards from Jan 2011.

I'm looking for the following attributes, especially given it's an always-on device:

1) efficiency (with built in graphics)
2) ATX form factor, with many choices (many memory types can be used, many PCI slots)
3) decent SATA and USB3 flexibility (not a fan of adding eSATA cards or RAID cards, want to use USB3 to backup to external USB3 enclosure I have for off-site backup)
4) UEFI (should I wish to boot from 3TB someday)
5) a little more future proof, with newer LGA1155 socket (that replaces LGA1156 socket), not that it's likely I'll ever replace the CPU. Read more here:
http://www.tomshardw...8-28-intel-2600

For a review of an upcoming ASUS motherboard, read:
"Intel’s Z68 Approaches – ASUS P8Z68-V PRO Preview"
http://livetechnogui...-v-pro-preview/
so it would seem that the ASUS P8Z68-V PRO, which has the LGA1155 socket, and a non-NEC USB 3.0 controller, may be a good way to go (I've had issues with NEC).

Of course I'm fishing for alternative opinions on this as well, that's why I post here, of course. Particularly a motherboard with low watt burn when idle, yet has all the attributes I require.

According to Integrated Graphics Efficiency Results (admittedly a dated Jan 2011 review):
http://www.tomshardw...-nm,2831-8.html
it's clear to me Intel beats AMD for watt burn, especially when idle:
http://www.tomshardw...nm,2831-10.html
http://www.anandtech...-2100-tested/21

So now for the CPU, the only LGA1155 Core i5/i7 I spot with reasonable watt burn is the Core i5-2390T at 35 watts, or the Core i7-2xxxS series at 65 watts, according to this Core i3/i5/i7 overview site:
http://en.wikipedia....hitecture_based

Core i5-2390T at about $195 and 35 watts max:
Part # CM8062301002115
http://en.wikipedia.....22_.2832_nm.29
http://ark.intel.com...t.aspx?id=53448
$195 according to this Intel site:
http://ark.intel.com...arketSegment=DT

But it has only 2 actual cores and only 3.0MB of cache, and I may do some fairly heavy crunching with my WHS2011 someday and would like a bit more headroom.

So digging into the i7 series, there's only one i7 model at the low watt-burn end, it's the quad-core:
Core i7-2600S at about $300 and 65 watts max:
Part # CM8062300835604
http://en.wikipedia.....22_.2832_nm.29
http://ark.intel.com...t.aspx?id=52215

$300 retail according to this Intel site:
http://ark.intel.com...arketSegment=DT

but doesn't really appear to be shipping from anywhere quite yet, and here it shows $359 for example:
http://www.cdw.com/s...8M/2347906.aspx

So it would seem I have some weeks to mull this all over.

Opinions?

Sounds like you already did your research and I agree with most of what you are stating however I do have a couple of comments. First the Z68 is more interesting to enthusiast than it is to a home server. The only "real" benefit it offers is the addition of quick sync support to the "H" series which does not do anything for home servers. Granted, if you are going to wait anyway then why not but personally $300 for a server board is probably not the best value assuming you are going to use it as a server. Assuming you do not use this as a VM, you will not be buying better quality but rather features that will most likely not be used in WHS. Although I have used VM systems, I am still in camp of building a box for a single purpose. Data to me is too critical and there are enough limitations in WHS 2011 backup that I do not want to complicate things. You have listed some killer components for an enthusiast build but you really need to look at the storage requirements such as RAID cards and drives as that is what truly matters in WHS and will do more for safety and performance than any motherboard will do. In addition, it will help you far more in overcoming inherent limitations in 2011. I am now on my fourth WHS 2011 server and I can tell that performance is not the key as even my Core I3-530/540 ‘s never go above 30% even during real time transcoding. What is key is storage strategy as the backup scheme in 2011 next to useless if you have more than 2T that require backing up. Ultimately you have to buy what is right for and your use case so I am just giving my opinion, and don’t get me wrong I want a Z68 motherboard, but I would rather put in on my desktop rather than a home server where it can be utilized to its full potential and I can make use of those extra features. Just my two cents.

[dagamer34]

Unless your CPU is going to be constantly churning with data, I see little reason to get a low-power CPU, as the wattage associated with CPU ratings has to do with [b]heat dissipation[\b] not power consumption. An idle stock Core i7 will use the same amount of power as an "S" version, but the latter is not allowed to pass a certain thermal limit. I'm also not sure "low power" and "virtual machine" can be comfortably said in the same sentence.

But I do wish you the best of luck. I'd personally avoid ASUS if you will be running WHS 2011 as a host OS, as their motherboard drivers don't like installing themselves on server operating systems like Windows Server 2008 R2. Sure, you could do it yourself, but why put forth the extra effort when MSI and Gigabyte make it a much easier task?

[Citezein]

I'm also not sure "low power" and "virtual machine" can be comfortably said in the same sentence.

My ESXi VM server runs very cool and quiet at idle. With five hard drives and an i5-2400, the server idles around 55 - 60 Watts. I consider this very good performance, as my old P4 server idled at 120 Watts.

[pcdoc]

Every use case and expectation is different but I agree with Citezein. It is not so much whether or not it is on a VM as much as what each is going to do. The subject of building high end home servers keeps coming up and for the most part you have to decide what your budget, power bill and needs will allow. It goes with out saying that my 2600k will work as a WHS but do I really want that? VM's do generally require more CPU power but it goes back to what you are using it for. I have run a core I3 as VM several times with no performance issues at all (more ram was helpful though). Remember that if your VM's are serving your network your performance bottleneck will be your network not the server. If the applications of each VM does not translate to the user experience due to other constraints than the extra performance will not be well served (no pun intended). The punchline is what matters is that you are happy with your purchase, the performance, and the power consumption. As I have a minimum of 4 PC's on 24/7 and I live in So Cal, power is an issue for me. I could care less about power draw on my main system which is not on all the time but my HTPC's and servers I care. I want what is coming out of wall as well as heating up the room to be as little as possible and be able to maintain an acceptable performance. My core I3 server has 14 drives in it and draws about 80 watts out of the wall, and my other server has 10 drives and draws about 68 watts and both are extremely quick for this use case. If I could get that to 60 by a motherboard or CPU change I would do it as these are dedicated servers. Even with I3's they are incredibly over powered and idle most of the time.

[tinkererguy]

This is all excellent information, and I love that the "big picture" is getting "painted" by so many folks with different perspectives, which helps a great deal.

There were many things I could have stated more clearly, here's two of them:

1) VMs: I only occasionally use Windows2008R2x64 and Linux based VMs, and mostly for exercises or trainings or proof-of-concept work, but occasionally for network tool and other tests where it's nice to kick the tires for weeks at a time, and leave the VM running (idle) to test on a whim, as needed (such as SharePoint tests). Gigabit throughput is not concern/bottleneck for me. And probably 90% of any given month, the WHS2011 server CPU cores will be very nearly at idle. The spikes would be when I'm "playing" with VMs by day, or small rises in CPU use at night, as it gets new daily backups from WiFi and wired laptops (that wake up just for the 15-25 minute daily backups). ESXi 4.1U1 has very little overhead/performance impact (I've been using ESX for many years in production environments at work). When comparing disk or network I/O speeds of WHS2011 run natively, or in an ESXi-hosted VM, the speed should be very nearly the same, but I'll be doing some more tests to verify that soon as well (and check watt burn as well).

2) Motherboard choice
I had kind of thought about standardizing on ASUS, having used their boards a lot in the early to mid 90s when making custom builds. And I was thinking of buying a second identical motherboard for an affordable gaming system my son is building, which could wind up being a good donor motherboard someday down the road, should my WHS2011 motherboard go. But if the driver/chipset support really is better for Gigabyte or MSI, I'll give those a look as well, of course, stability matters far more to me. Given I've been using 64 bit drivers for my primary laptop for many years (since Vista 64 bit shipped), I'm a little surprised that ASUS support for W2K8R2x64-based WHS2011 (essentially identical to Windows 7 64 bit drivers) would be an issue, but come to think of it, I do recall reading others concerned about ASUS drivers as well. As I had mentioned in my original post, I hadn't bought a separate motherboard in many years, and have only begun researching this, and it shows! But you all are getting me up to speed in a hurry. And this is more fun (and more versatile, I need drive bays) frankly than spending well over $1200 on a roughly similar prebuilt WHS2011 Tranquil box shipped from UK, for example.

I wish I could find a graph of the watt burn of various Core i3/i5/i7 chips at idle, that could be interesting. Anybody spot one?

I also realize that over-taxing an underclocked/super-efficient CPU that winds up making routine tasks take much longer could be silly (and a waste of money given the higher cost), and I've seen some articles somewhere that make that argument. So it would appear shaving some serious $ off the cost, by skipping the 2600S, and going with 2600K might make plenty of sense, especially given the amazingly low watt burn I'm seeing folks reporting here.

I'm trying to stick to the already-complex CPU/motherboard topic here, but I should mention that I have years of WHSv1 experience with handling rebuilds (and RAID arrays) at several homes (and worksites), and dealing with my 3.8TB of PC backups is a whole 'nother topic. I'm working that out by "piloting" trials on a temporary/learning testbed now, using WHS2011 without RAID, with software RAID, and with hardware RAID. But that system burns 300-400 watts at idle, ouch! So my final build will likely be very sturdy, simple, and, well, boring, the way I like it. Messing around should be done in VMs, not tainting the actual WHS2011 instance with the tinkering I'm apt to do.

So, complex storage discussions probably belongs in another thread.

Back to motherboards and CPUs. If we could stick to first-hand-and-recent Gigabyte/MSI/ASRock? Sandybridge-based motherboard discussions in this thread going forward, that'd probably be helpful, as I try to make an educated guess at which Z68 motherboard is the way to go, possibly for many of us (I personally will still probably buy 2).

I'm hoping I don't blow it by being an early adopter, and I realize the risk of buying a Z68 motherboard the month it's released. Just look what happened with the H67 back in January:
http://www.zdnet.com...1-billion/11157

But posting thoughts here reduces the risk, as I get up to speed on the latest motherboards.

Thank you again everybody for your constructive/helpful feedback!

Edited by tinkererguy, 30 April 2011 - 02:09 PM.

[ImTheTypeOfGuy]

If EVGA makes the Z68 you should look at it as well. My EVGA, X58, is by far my favorite. I like it much more that my Asus Sabertooth.

[tinkererguy]

If EVGA makes the Z68 you should look at it as well. My EVGA, X58, is by far my favorite. I like it much more that my Asus Sabertooth.

Looks like folks are concerned EVGA may be delaying a little in getting a Z68 offering ready:
http://www.evga.com/...=985010&mpage=1
but it would seem that in a week or so, we'll know more about who is shipping what, and for how much.

Edited by tinkererguy, 02 May 2011 - 02:06 PM.

[tinkererguy]

It would appear my pricing estimates were based on far-too-high retail estimates, for example, the ASUS pricing has shown up here (but not in stock yet, so not terribly meaningful):
$219 for Asus MB P8268-V PRO
http://www.fticomput...-V_PRO&REFID=FR

$219 for Gigabyte GA-Z68X-UD4-B3:
http://www.fticomput...UD4-B3&REFID=FR
http://www.vtechindu...155-motherboard

$? for ASROCK Z68 Pro3:
http://www.asrock.co...?Model=Z68 Pro3

? for MSI Z68A-GD80
http://www.techpower...I-Z68A-GD80-(B3)-Motherboard-Pictured.html

Description of how GPU not used when not needed(saving watts):
http://giapytech.com...ard-z68-review/

[ImTheTypeOfGuy]

Just to muddy the water, maybe you should wait for the X79 (link) series. It has me intriqued given they say it is the replacement for X58 which was top of the line for that class.

[tinkererguy]

Just to muddy the water, maybe you should wait for the X79 (link) series. It has me intriqued given they say it is the replacement for X58 which was top of the line for that class.

Yeah, I like muddy water!

I had read about that X79, but I won't have the luxury of waiting until the expected 4Q2011 release:
http://whatswithjeff...for-enthusiast/

I have the following factors to consider:
I have filled my 7TB WHS v1 system now (3.8TB of it is PC backups), and have no more room to grow it, and don't want to put more $ into it
Want to have WHS 2011 up by June, to totally replace my WHS v1 box
Need the similar gaming box this June as well
Need the room to backup growing HD video as well
Need to nail down my offsite storage strategy (about a year overdue already)
I need to get backups sped up (10 systems hitting my WHS v1 nightly)
I need to get restores sped up, I do about 3-4 restores per month, and they're getting slower

Currently, with WHS v1, it takes me about 4 hours to restore 500MB of data to fast 7200rpm laptop 2.5" drive, whether using gigabit network, or using a USB 3.0 dock directly attached to WHS v1 box with the client restore wizard, with CPUs on my old WHS v1 box pegged at 90% during the whole restore.

[Dave-o]

Hey, interesting discussion and good research here. I joined the forum to follow this one.

Until recently I was basically happy with my Acer H340, putting up with it's inconsistent I/O performance as a minor nuisance. Then I started trying to stream 1080P and realized the drive extender load balancing brings the box to it's knees. There looks to be little hope of getting good consistent performance out of the combination of WHS v1 & a 1.6 GHz Atom processor.

So now I'm in the market for a low idle-power but better headroom setup (potential on-the-fly 1080P transcoding?), probably going with RAID 5 to replace WHS drive extender.

I'm not sure if VT-d is a requirement for me, but it sounds like a good option for added future-proofing if the cost isn't too high. But the question is whether Z68 motherboards support VT-d. And VT-d excludes SandyBridge 'K' processors which is a bummer - isn't it kind of crazy that the higher-end Intel processors don't support a high-end feature like VT-d??

Currently I'm looking at a low-end i5 and the Foxcon H67S motherboart, which supposedly supports VT-d. (Can anyone confirm this?) It can be found for only $70 and has eSATA and a PCIe slot, so the SATA IO options are covered...

Anyway, thanks for starting this thread, should be interesting to see what folks end up with.

[tinkererguy]

Great points! Now I need to dive deeper into the importance of VT-d to me.

Here's misc VT-d info, but I suspect you've Googled through many of the same hits:
http://hardforum.com...hp?p=1036939006
http://software.inte...ead.php?t=56802

Interesting, this thread we're in right here on "HomeServerShow Forums" is the first Google result today, when searching for:
Z68 motherboard "VT-d" support

Here's the query in URL form:
http://www.google.co...e3f1e0e7b&ion=1

[ImTheTypeOfGuy]

Interesting, this thread we're in right here on "HomeServerShow Forums" is the first Google result today, when searching for:
Z68 motherboard "VT-d" support

Here's the query in URL form:
http://www.google.co...e3f1e0e7b&ion=1

Awesome!

[tinkererguy]

Well, I gotta say, as I think more about this, I really want to be able to have the ability to back up 25 different systems, AND have the fun media sharing and remote access stuff WHS2011 offers.

One way to do that: use ESXi 4.1U1 of a USB key, then have both VMs left running side by side 24x7.
Another way to do that: run WHS2011 natively, and have a VMware Player-hosted VM running Essentials, with support for 25 PC backups, if the I/O (network & disk) speed holds up.

I realize using ESXi at home is not exactly normal, nor is juggling of VMs, but I'm accustomed to it, and have been doing it for years already. And hopefully this thread still applies to many WHS2011 would be builders, lurking for parts advice as well.

I'd say 8GB of RAM would be a minimum, either way I choose to accomplish these goals.

So it would seem I'm now seeking the best way to build a decent ESXi 4.1U1 box, which could also run WHS2011, both of which I don't have the gear to do currently, at least not without spending far too much on electricity these next 3-4 years of lifespan for this box.

Let me lay it out. My ~5-year-old 90 watt box running WHSv1 now is totally underpowered. While my 400 watt test box would do nicely specs wise, the $600 per year in electricity is crazy (rough calculations), x 4 years, that's $2400. Not to mention the extra cooling to counteract the BTUs it throws out the back. Not good for my budget, not good for the environment.

So, now back to where this thread began, figuring out the heart of this imagined system: Which Z68 motherboard with integrated graphics support, paired which Core i7 CPU, gives me decent 4 year ownership cost AND performance?

I'm amazed there's so little chatter out there about Z68 motherboards and WHS2011 and/or ESXi 4.1 just yet: that'll likely change a lot these next weeks as Z68 products begin to ship, at least I'm hoping...meanwhile, I'm sure enjoying this thread!

Edited by tinkererguy, 05 May 2011 - 10:13 PM.

[tinkererguy]

Core i7 2600 (with VT-d support)
$344.45 (In Stock)
http://www.pcconnect...6251&cac=Result

Core i7 2600S (with VT-d support)
$349.27 (On Order)
http://www.pcconnect...0122&cac=Result

I'm not saying these are likely to be the best prices around, I'm just using these as comparisons, now that the 2600S is starting to show up at more sites.

As far as the Core i7 2600K, it has no VT-d support, so perhaps not a good choice for me, a virtualization guy, looking to leverage the heck out of my gear these next 4 years.

Here's something I found about VT-d at this site:
http://www.techques....Xeon-vt-d-query
here's the paragraph I found interesting, by "HTH" on 1/3/2011:

VT-d is a feature of the memory controller, which now happens to be in the CPU for Nehalem and later systems. For systems prior to Nehalem, you need support in the chipset. All CPU's require a MB BIOS that supports VT-d.

For example, a Q6600 is listed as having no VT-d support, which is correct. The CPU itself does not have any VT-d functions. However, if you put that CPU into a MB with a Q35 or a Q45 chipset, VT-d works perfectly well, as long as you have a BIOS update that turns on VT-d support.

The difference is with Nehalem and later CPUs, if support is listed as "no" in ARK, you cannot add VT-d support to the system through the chipset. If "yes" appears in ark, and you put this in a MB that supports VT-d, VT-d will work just fine.

HTH

More about "VT-d" written up by Intel here:
http://software.inte...y-ept-and-vt-d/
http://software.inte...-of-io-devices/

A lot to slog through. But in my own circumstance (juggling likely no more than 3-5 VMs on any given day, with an overall rather light load compared to any enterprise), making sure my motherboard has full VT-d support probably isn't a big priority for me.

Edited by tinkererguy, 05 May 2011 - 10:27 PM.