Old 25th August 2009, 22:10   #1
dlichterman
Forum King
 
dlichterman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Where Hell Froze Over
Posts: 2,466
Building myself a NAS

So since I have no backup/storage solution right now, I was looking into setting up some sort of NAS. I was looking at devices like the drobo but they are reaaaallly expensive for what you get. Instead, I looked into building my own. Here are the parts I picked out

Asus with 5 SATA Mobo http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?inv...L-BO-R&cat=MBB $59.99
P4 3.0 2MB Cache CPU http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?inv...00D775&cat=CPU $44
Clear Case http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?inv...3LED-N&cat=CAS $41.99
Nice Power Supply http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16817139008 $29.99
1GB RAM http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?inv...8C5-1G&cat=RAM $13
5 WD 1TB Hard drives http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822136317 $374.95

Total cost after tax around 600 bucks.

I would use something like freeNAS or unRAID for the OS.

Thoughts? Suggestions?

Software is like sex: It's better when it's free.-*-If at first you don't succeed; call it version 1.0-*-Guess the band from pics game
dlichterman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2009, 01:17   #2
Tom
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 4,491
Several years ago I was going to build a file server similar to what you are trying to do. Back then HD prices were higher and due to the storage capacity I required I abandon the project due to cost. The two pieces of advice I'll give you are the following:
1. If you're planning on using RAID 5 make damn sure you have a good RAID controller. There is nothing worse than losing a drive and not being able to rebuild the array and losing ALL your data due to a single hard drive failure. Back when I was researching this the on-board RAID controllers weren't stellar so I opted for RAID 1 (on-board controllers can recover from a drive failure in RAID 1 easily) which further increased the amount of storage I needed.
2. Probably not a concern for most people but shortly after killing the above project I used a P4 with a couple HDs as a file server. That thing used more power than I could have ever imagined. I ended up giving it to a friend and purchasing a stand alone basic NAS which paid for itself in energy savings. Granted the basic NAS can't do everything a true file server could do but for what I need it for it is adequate.

Good luck with your project.

Tom

Tom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2009, 01:34   #3
fc*uk
Moderator
 
fc*uk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Atlantic Beach
Posts: 8,127
The buffalo nas drives in addition to Acronis true image have always been able to handle anything I wanted to do with them .... dunno if that is what you are looking for though.
fc*uk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2009, 02:50   #4
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
I'd rethink the project. If you are building for mission critical, I'd use RAID 1. I'd probably use 2 - 2TB drives instead of 5 1TB drives. Speed is going to be irrelevant because you are only filling a 1 GB lan connection. Even an EIDE drive could keep up with that. JBOD is an option. Drives are reliable for 5 years if you don't drop them Boot a usb stick to check smartdrive once in a while.

Since you don't need anything really powerful for a CPU, maybe a Celeron 440 would be good because it only draws 35 watts.

Mini-itx form factor would probably be a good deal and building for low power means less noise because you don't have to cool it. A little planning might yield a machine that only draws a few watts at idle and maybe 90 watts at full blast. Almost fanless would mo betta.

I'd do a little more homework.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2009, 05:52   #5
dlichterman
Forum King
 
dlichterman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Where Hell Froze Over
Posts: 2,466
Yea the power issue is one that I have looked at. unRaid is really cool where it DOESNT stripe and if multiple drives fail, you only loose those drives, the data is still intact. I think I do need to do something else about the power though.....but I don't want to break the bank. This is gonna basically just hold all my shit cause I don't want it stored on a laptop I could drop at and time.

Software is like sex: It's better when it's free.-*-If at first you don't succeed; call it version 1.0-*-Guess the band from pics game
dlichterman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2009, 06:01   #6
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
Maybe just a USB drive would be simpler unless a guy really needed multiple terabytes. I've got a 250GB EIDE drive in a Vantec case that I've used for years without issues.

SDHC cards are getting big enough to be a pretty good backup too.

Last edited by rockouthippie; 26th August 2009 at 06:22.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2009, 12:08   #7
P$ycHo™
Flakmonkey!
 
P$ycHo™'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: DM-Campgrounds
Posts: 1,870
what about using the intel atom? low power usage and should have enough power for a fileserver. but i dont think it can do raid by itself so you will need a pci-e raid controller.
P$ycHo™ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2009, 21:30   #8
dlichterman
Forum King
 
dlichterman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Where Hell Froze Over
Posts: 2,466
unRaid is a software raid so I don't need a raid card.

I have looked into the atom stuff. I might just get a 2 drive enclosure with Raid1 and call it a day......

Software is like sex: It's better when it's free.-*-If at first you don't succeed; call it version 1.0-*-Guess the band from pics game
dlichterman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th August 2009, 00:56   #9
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
All raid is really software raid

After asking a few geek nerds, they said the Asus AT3GC-I motherboard with an integrated Atom was a good choice. It's $100. It does have the crappy dogish Intel 945 video chipset it, but it shouldn't matter for a NAS. About $100.

The Zotac IONITX-C-U is about the same except it has a motherboard raid controller and has Nvidia graphics. About $150. I've seen a machine with this (one of the nerds) 512MB runs Ubuntu nice. Video at 720p works unlike the 945.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th August 2009, 00:58   #10
P$ycHo™
Flakmonkey!
 
P$ycHo™'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: DM-Campgrounds
Posts: 1,870
afaik only the atom bords with the nvidia ion graphics chipset have onboard raid. i looked into this earlier as im probably going to build me a fileserver with one of those myself.
P$ycHo™ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th August 2009, 01:08   #11
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
I haven't played with any of this nas software, but my thinking is that "hardware" raid isn't going to provide any improvement in speed over software because you are just feeding a relatively slow lan connection with it. The differences between a raid controller and a regular drive controller aren't going to be that important. I think both would handle a RAID 1 faster than you could could feed it with a GB lan.

I'm not even sure that hardware raid makes that much difference. I've set up raid 0 with Fedora on both types of motherboards. If there is a difference, there isn't much. It might be a little less compute intensive with a real raid controller, but not intensive at all is what it really is. It does matter if you are running Windows, but that's more like "just because it's Windows".
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th August 2009, 08:40   #12
dlichterman
Forum King
 
dlichterman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Where Hell Froze Over
Posts: 2,466
Yeah I saw those CPU/MB combos on newegg......very tempting. Even saw one with a pci-x x1 so a SATA card in the future would be a possibilty. Its kinda turning into a NAS/Home entertainment box.......which actually would be great cause then I would be able to rip movies to it......and then play them right there through the HDMI port. When we get an HDTV that is....

Software is like sex: It's better when it's free.-*-If at first you don't succeed; call it version 1.0-*-Guess the band from pics game
dlichterman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th August 2009, 13:24   #13
LeadFoot
Senior Member
 
LeadFoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 192
How about this? Two drive, supports mirroring, and comes with 1TB drive for $250 after rebate.
LeadFoot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th August 2009, 15:48   #14
Atmo
The Freak
(Forum King)
 
Atmo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,400
I've used fairly beefy home file servers for a few years now, my current server runs a Q6600, 4GB, Adaptec PCI-e SATA RAID and about 2TB of redundant storage. I get 80-85 MB/s on larger transfers over Gb lan. I don't use it for backup, it's dedicated VM, build, media & document storage. Backups go on other systems, external drives etc. which aren't connected and running 24/7.

If outright performance isn't a huge issue, the 1-4 bay compact, all-in-one, NAS boxes are fine. They may seem expensive compared to a cheap home built PC running as a NAS, but if it's running 24/7, it's false economy as after a year or so the extra power the PC will use will have more than paid the difference.
Atmo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th August 2009, 21:14   #15
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
I'm sorta curious. What did you have to save that was that big? My music collection in both flac and mp3 is only about 24 GB. That exists on 3 different machines. Is this computer packratism? I guess I could store my DVD collection on a disk but why?

I have a 500GB hard disk in my PVR machine. When compressed that's hundreds of hours of TV. By the time the queue gets erased I don't care. If it was really something I wanted to save, I made a DVD.

If I lost all of the data on all of my machines I wouldn't care that much. Yeah, I'd be a little grumpy for a couple days while I figured out how to get passwords back and stuff... but nothing critical....

I do scan personal financial documents and toss the paper, but even that isn't very big. Those get encrypted and sent to the web and on CD-R's and/or flash cards to go in the safe. I doubt 5 years of scanned records and balance sheets takes 10GB.

Last edited by rockouthippie; 27th August 2009 at 21:35.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th August 2009, 21:52   #16
P$ycHo™
Flakmonkey!
 
P$ycHo™'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: DM-Campgrounds
Posts: 1,870
porn?

nah, just kidding.

but those damn 1080p rips are huge.
P$ycHo™ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th August 2009, 22:01   #17
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
Yeah, I didn't think about that because I haven't adopted HD except for a 720p 50" plasma TV. Still for backing up 1080p recordings, I would think a NAS would be cursedly slow. I really run into very few movies that I'd want to watch twice anyway... at least without a couple years in between viewings. Owning them or renting them again seems a better idea than storing them.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th August 2009, 09:25   #18
dlichterman
Forum King
 
dlichterman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Where Hell Froze Over
Posts: 2,466
Its basically the music ive got, plus movies, and pictures. Ive started shooting with a digital SLR and when I shoot in RAW it usually ends up being a gig or two of pictures. I wanted some way to centralize it all.

Software is like sex: It's better when it's free.-*-If at first you don't succeed; call it version 1.0-*-Guess the band from pics game
dlichterman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th August 2009, 12:30   #19
P$ycHo™
Flakmonkey!
 
P$ycHo™'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: DM-Campgrounds
Posts: 1,870
its also really useful if you use multiple PCs because you can easily access data from all PCs if they are stored on a NAS.
P$ycHo™ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th August 2009, 19:16   #20
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
I always use shared data folders, so one PC is just about like another.

Photos huh? Yeah that might be a nice thing to have them all in one place instead of on a stack of CD-R. I only have a 7 megapixel camera, so a gigabyte is about 800 exposures. If I shoot 200 pictures at a time, I took a lot of pix. Probably half of those get immediately culled. Probably only 20 are keepers. If I get 2 or 3 that are really good, I think it's a win.

It's not even as good a ratio as when I used 35mm where I'd get one really good picture per roll of film.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th August 2009, 23:15   #21
P$ycHo™
Flakmonkey!
 
P$ycHo™'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: DM-Campgrounds
Posts: 1,870
ofc you can use shared folders but that forces you to have them both running at the same time.

and even with 7mp if you shot in RAW you would never fit 800 pictures on 1 gig. my 10mp dslr fits about 250 on 1gb card with best jpeg quality.
P$ycHo™ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th August 2009, 23:58   #22
dlichterman
Forum King
 
dlichterman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Where Hell Froze Over
Posts: 2,466
Each RAW image is around 8-10 megs a pop........starts to add up. I have been thinking maybe I could just use something such as this:

http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?inv...ODRIVE&cat=CAS

Might just be easier. Plus right now I am a little distracted with a girl.......

Software is like sex: It's better when it's free.-*-If at first you don't succeed; call it version 1.0-*-Guess the band from pics game
dlichterman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th August 2009, 02:03   #23
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
Go pay attention to the girl
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th August 2009, 20:08   #24
swingdjted
DRINK BEER NOW
(Forum King)
 
swingdjted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Northern West Virginia
Posts: 9,990
Send a message via AIM to swingdjted Send a message via Yahoo to swingdjted
Girls sometime forget stuff, other times withhold information = data loss

Good redundant file backup = no data loss



I like having a movie collection on hard drives. at 8GB per flick X2 for backup, it adds up fast. I like non-compressed; makes burning easy when necessary. Storage is cheap, so I just keep buying 1.5TB drives (cheapest per-gig capacity so far).

Don't forget to live before you die.
swingdjted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th August 2009, 11:04   #25
P$ycHo™
Flakmonkey!
 
P$ycHo™'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: DM-Campgrounds
Posts: 1,870
right. those are cheaper already than my 1tb drive was back when i got it.
P$ycHo™ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th August 2009, 12:41   #26
k_rock923
\m/
(Forum King)
 
k_rock923's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: /bin/bash
Posts: 7,850
Send a message via AIM to k_rock923
Just buy a NetApp

Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway.
k_rock923 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd September 2009, 08:24   #27
dlichterman
Forum King
 
dlichterman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Where Hell Froze Over
Posts: 2,466
Heh, we have one of those at school, cool shit!

Software is like sex: It's better when it's free.-*-If at first you don't succeed; call it version 1.0-*-Guess the band from pics game
dlichterman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > General Discussions

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump