Why are NAS so expensive? What prevents me from buying a $40 case and a $50 mobo to achieve the same thing as a $400 NAS?
Stupidity.
>why are prebuilts so expensive
>what stops me from building my own pc
Nothing
>>52087014
hey to be fair I'm talking about a NAS, hence my question is there anything special about a prebuilt NAS?
>>52086936
You're paying for convenience... and for cloud software that will data mine the mess out of what you put on it. But don't worry about that, it's for your own good in case someone burns down your house.
Why buy a router when you can just build a PC and install a firewall distro on it?
It's really just a matter of convenience and form factor.
>>52087115
I get the point but installing and configuring pfsense properly is a lot harder than just slapping a few hard drives into a case.
>>52086936
my only guess is that you save a bit of energy and you get a better warranty/tech support compared to a DIY setup which a lot of companies dont mind paying for.
i just plugged pic related into an old netbook and it works fine considering im the only person who uses it.
>>52087172
Wrong pic related I guess.
>>52086936
build your own. use freenas.
>>52086936
Because you also need a power supply ram and a cpu.
>>52087194
how so?
its a 100$ usb enclosure with 4 bays, plugged that into an old eeepc and got a pretty decent nas.
>>52087041
That's his point, there's not.
What's the difference between a NAS and plugging a USB hdd into my router?
>>52087147
I get the point but installing and configuring freenas/debian with btrfs properly is a lot harder than just slapping a few network cables into a NIC.
>>52087300
friend tried that with his router but he said it lagged when he tried to play an HD movie off of it.
>>52087172
Are these USB enclosures any good?
>>52087395
Well, mine doesn't lag at all when streaming 1080p video. Never used a NAS before, so I was just wondering if there was a difference.
>>52086936
>What prevents me from buying a $40 case and a $50 mobo to achieve the same thing as a $400 NAS?
Nothing. But realize that you'll also need a CPU, RAM, a PSU, and some additional storage for the OS. Then just install FreeNAS and you're good to go. A NAS is a niche item, so it carries a premium. See those hotswap trays? Those are expensive, you wont have them in your build, and if you bought them individually they're usually like $15 each. Your crappy old PC will also not have ECC RAM (a shitty NAS also wont, but that's besides the point) and if you care about your data you want ECC. Especially if you're using ZFS. The NAS is also probably a bit lighter on electricity than the PC you're building will be. Depending on electricity costs in your area, that might be a factor.
>>52087607
but were talking about a dirt cheap machine with minimal cpu and ram. can easily put something together for under 200$ and the savings get even better if you get used parts or cannibalize parts from old computers.
>>52087222
How's that different from 4 3.5" docks and a hub
>>52088152
A lot of these multibay enclosures do hardware RAID
>>52088081
That "dirt cheap machine" won't have Hitachi drives nor ECC RAM.
>>52087115
>Why buy a router when you can just build a PC and install a firewall distro on it?
Buying a router is a lot cheaper (and uses less energy).
>>52087300
there isn't any.
I bet both are CIFS so winfag consumers can use it without hassle.
>>52087222
Running external hard drives through a USB hub is the most ghetto, shitty, NAS you can possibly build. It will be slow as shit (all drives sharing the same bus), unreliable, and prone to failure.
>>52088081
Of course you can put together a piece of shit for cheap, you just get what you pay for. That's not to say some NAS aren't overpriced, but hopefully you can see the difference between a decent NAS and a shitty old 45nm rig with non-ECC memory stuck in a noisy midtower.
>>52088189
i don't know barely anything about raid but for what i understood
>raid0
not reliable
>raid1 or more
why not software
OP i have a small "prebuilt" Nas, i bought it for 60€, since it's just a linux machine it installed deluge on it and now's also a seedbox. if i'll ever need something bigger i'll probably build it by myself
>>52088299
>slow as shit (all drives sharing the same bus), unreliable, and prone to failure
None of which matters when all you're doing is streaming the anime.
If you care about data backup, just use a cloud service.
What I don't get is why these dedicated NAS boxes typically have a celeron and 2gb of ram, the typical FreeNAS build seems to a 64GB ECC Xeon monster for the same number of drives.
>>52088299
i agree that external USB drives shared on a lan is a shitty solution but you have to admit that once you have an ethernet card with gigabit, internal drives with sata connection, a shitty cpu and no more than 1GB of ram you're done, all that thing has to do is just send files over the network and for that is overkill, prebuilt NAS are nice since they do what they're made for but come on, you don't need to much to get their performance
>>52086936
I've been lazy the last few years and have been using a Synology NAS for storage, routing, WLAN, firewall, VPN, etc. but have been itching for 10GbE and don't want to pay $5k or whatever for a professional appliance.
What's a good Linux distro that supports ZFS on Linux plus some sort of decent web interface that supports 95% of common config crap?
>>52088404
since we are in topic and i'm moving files to the nas here pic related, just 8MB/s, the SD card is very very slow and (i don't know what's the bottleneck) this desktop's ethernet card has only 100mbs, on the gigabit it goes up to 40MB/s
>>52087041
>is there anything special about a prebuilt NAS?
>>52087115
>It's really just a matter of convenience and form factor.
This man speaks the truth.
>>52087300
A proper NAS is going to offer better performance and more features.
>>52088528
Because ZFS. The fact that people who build their own boxes tend to be power-users also makes them more likely to buy loads of RAM.
>>52088551
IMHO it would be easier/cheaper to stick the WLAN, Firewall, and VPN on one box and the NAS on another.
>>52088528
the typical NAS appliance user just wants a small, quiet, low-power machine and has maybe at most 2 concurrent users.
unless you're doing something beyond simple file sharing, even a quad-core Xeon is overkill, but people who want ECC are forced to go that route unless they want to go with AMD or one of the goofy Atom/Avoton SKUs.
>>52088594
fuck here pic
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA6ZP3MK4877&cm_re=Zyxel_NSA325V2-_-0B1-00TN-00004-_-Product
I think it would be hardware building something like that with new hardware for the same price.
>>52088595
>IMHO it would be easier/cheaper to stick the WLAN, Firewall, and VPN on one box and the NAS on another.
Easier maybe, but why cheaper?
I'm trying to minimize power since I keep my current NAS/router on UPS.
>>52087041
If I work for a company and I'm not using my own money, I'd rather buy a prebuilt one so I'm not at fault if shit breaks.
But for home use you should build your own
>>52086936
ease of use, ease to setup and convenience mostly.
Why buy a car if you can just take the bus?
Because I like driving in a vehicle that doesn't smell like piss and shit and is full of niggers, so I buy a car.
>>52088404
RAID0 is for when you GOTTA GO FAST. Your data is striped across all the drives in your array. It has no data redundancy, so if one of the drives fails, you're fucked. But it's the fastest of all the RAID levels for both read and write operations.
RAID1 is a one-to-one mirror between drives. You need twice as many drives as your planned usable storage. In other words, if you want 8TB of storage, you need 16TB of drives. Because of this, it's the most expensive option and rarely used.
RAID5 writes parity data to each drive in the array. It works out so that you have protection if one drive in your array fails. If more than one drive fails at once, you are fucked, regardless of how many drives are in your array. So the more drives you add, the worse idea it is to use RAID5. RAID6 is the same as RAID5 except it provides protection against two drive failures at once. RAID7 against three drive failures at once.
RAIDZ, RAIDZ2, RAIDZ3 are improved versions of RAID5, RAID6, and RAID7 respectively. They solve a problem called the "write-hole" which could cause catastrophic data failure in the event of a power outage.
There are other nested and non-standard RAID levels, but those are the most common. You can implement any of them in software. You generally don't need hardware RAID controllers these days. RAID controllers were nice because they offloaded all the processing to a discrete card. That was a big deal back when processors were slow, but your quad core doesn't give a fuck and chews through that shit. So using a RAID controller usually doesn't net you any benefit, is a waste of money, and just means you will need to find the exact same RAID controller to repurchase if it ever fails, since they're not interchangeable. If your motherboard purports to have RAID support, I'd recommend not using it. Motherboards usually implement what is known as "fakeraid", which is hardware RAID that still relies on your CPU for data processing. It has no benefit.
>>52088424
>If you care about data backup, just use a cloud service.
Haha, no. Cloud services are unreliable and could just up and disappear for various reasons. Not to mention you're putting all your data in the hands of a third-party and have no idea of what their security infrastructure is. You should assume that anyone at your cloud provider is sniffing through your data just out of boredom.
Hijacking thread for a related question.
I need a atx case that has a shit load of 3.5 drive bays and is not too expensive. what can you guys reccomend?
Nothing. In the topic of making your own NAS, what would I want for more than 20TB of storage with redundancy? With 4TB drives, I would need about 7 drives for a RAID 6 setup. I haven't read much on ZFS other than it can combine many features from different kinds of RAID and being much more expensive. I'm really tempted to just make pic related into a dedicated NAS once mid 2016 hits and all the good stuff is mostly out. I think it would be better in the long run if I just started from 0 though, even if some miracle in storage happens on the next 10 years(lol graphene, lol DNA storage, lol affordable 128TB SSDs).
>>52088655
This
i bought a NAS for my mother because i didnt want any responsibility
Worth the extra $200
>>52088530
The perfect NAS will provide data integrity protection (i.e. What is sent to it makes it to the drives intact with EEC RAM), data redundancy (i.e. RAID), and deliver performance similar to having the drives physically attached to your PC. If you just want a dumb storage terminal and don't give a shit about data corruption or failure, then go ahead and daisy chain a bunch of external drives like a retard.
>>52088551
FreeNAS is your best bet, although it's based on FreeBSD and not Linux. But their version of ZFS is more feature complete than ZFS on Linux so it's your best bet. It's also stupid simple to set up.
>>52088747
how many is a shitoad?
>>52088638
SBC+Cheap Plastic Case
>>52088650
You can use an SBC or a Router for WLAN etc. at minimal cost. EdgeRouter Lite is only 7w. That way you can concentrate on building/buying a dedicated NAS box without having to worry about needing unrelated features (which will bloat the price and power consumption).
>>52088749
Try out running ZFS with some data you don't care about first. I don't have the link, but there's a presentation from a 20+ year Linux Dev that has several pages devoted to "ZFS is hardcore, do not fuck with it unless you know what you are doing".
What's the cheapest poorfag solution fpr making a freenas? Like what computer could i by today on ebay(in USA)? Just curious on the recommended options. I want to spend as liytle money as possible. I have no aesthetic preferences about the case.
>>52088594
>the SD card is very very slow
SD cards in general are slow as unholy fuck. There are special cards dedicated to performance (like the Samsung Pro+ cards) but even those are usually slower than typical HDDs.
>this desktop's ethernet card has only 100mbs, on the gigabit it goes up to 40MB/s
100Mbps is 12.5MB/s. And you wont get the full 12.5 because of overhead. So it's being bottlenecked by your NIC at a minimum. 1Gbps is 125MB/s, so that 40MB/s is more realistic of what you should expect to see.
>>52088873
If you don't give a shit about the power consumption, just get old used Xeon parts off eBay. You could probably put together something better than most prebuilt NAS devices for like $100 (without HDDs).
>>52088714
>RAID7
where do you people get this shit seriously stop being stupid
>>52088714
Wait, I understant RAID1 and RAID0, but RAID5 has me confused. So if you have 3 6TB drives, you have 18TB space, and if one drive fails, you DON'T lose 6TB??
>>52088969
iirc 3x6TB in RAID5 would give 12TB
>>52088969
No, you'd have 12TB of space. One of the three drives is redundant.
>>52088969
If you have three 6TB drives in RAID5 then you will only have 12TB of usable storage, with 6TB being parity data (shared across all drives). If any of the drives fail you'll still have all 12TB of your original storage, regardless of which drive it was that failed.
>>52088959
For whatever reason I was thinking there was a corresponding standard RAID level for each Z level, apparently not. Just one more reason to stick with ZFS, I guess.
>>52088969
RAID5 is considered N+1 redundancy, so you can lose any 1 drive at the cost of 1 drive's worth of capacity.
> e.g., 3*6TB RAID5 = 12TB usable capacity
> 5*6TB RAID5 = 25TB usable calacity
RAID6/RAIDZ2 mean you lose 2 drives of capacity for the ability to tolerate up to any 2 drives dying.
The idea is that you want to have enough drives in an array that the overhead isn't too high (e.g., RAID5 with 2 or 3 drives is pretty dumb) but not so high that it's likely that you could lose multiple drives at the same time (RAID5 would be dicey for a 10+ drive array).
>>52089053
>>52089027
>>52089026
So what's the benefit over RAID1? You still have one HD dedicated to redundency
>>52089106
>>52089097 Ah, I see. Never mind.
>>52089106
RAID1 only gives you the capacity of a single drive, but all but one drives can fail and the data stays intact since it just mirrors the data onto all the drives.
>>52089106
>So what's the benefit over RAID1? You still have one HD dedicated to redundency
Imagine a situation where you have four 5TB drives. In RAID5 you will have 15TB of usable storage. In RAID1 you will have 10TB of usable storage.
>>52088873
You can get a Dell PowerEdge 6850 for less than $100. Alternatively an old netbook or *Pi will do just fine.
>>52089151
No, you'd have 10TB usable in RAID6 or RAID10 or 01.
RAID1 would give you 5TB.
>>52088830
how easy is it to get a FreeNAS box running as a router?
there doesn't seem to be a lot of plugins/modules/whatever available along these lines from what I've seen, so I was guessing that I would need to go with some other solution.
>>52089213
I think he meant putting the 4 drives into 2 groups of 2 drives each.
>>52088747
Define expensive. The only ones off the top of my head are Lian Li and Fractal.
>>52089269
>I think he meant putting the 4 drives into 2 groups of 2 drives each.
Yeah, that's what I meant, but that's RAID10. He's right.
>>52088215
Pretty sure there are budget AMD boards you can get that can do ECC just fine. A $200 or below NAS with ECC should be entirely possible.
Only prebuilt nas I've ever bought was a HP microserver gen8. For the price they're bretty gud:
£179 at the time, now £160ish
Celeron g1610t
2gb ecc ram
5 sata ports, 4 3.5", 1 2.5"
Dual NIC
Dedicated iLO
Can be upgraded. I found a xeon e3-1240v2 on eBay and this thing packs a punch for its size now.
I'm using the same passive heatsink as the Celeron so this thing is quiet as fuck too.
How do ZFS and RAID setups meld, if at all? Is it useful to have ZFS drives set up in a RAID array, or do ZFS pools make RAID unnecessary?
>>52089591
ZFS is basically software RAID (plus a ton of other shit) with special FS-level semantics that makes it possible to safely operate without a battery backed card.
ZFS plus hardware RAID is pretty much a nightmare, so you should be operating any sort of controller card in JBOD mode only.
>>52089749
eww people still use hardware RAID?
Why is everyone falling for the NAS meme? You don't need one.
What CPU should I go for if I want to build a NAS? A cheap AMD quad core, an APU, a cheap Intel dual core?
>>52089924
My computer is already a NAS, a bad one, but still a NAS.
>>52089828
RAID5 computation acceleration is a joke (XOR, kek), but double parity and higher can get hairy.
muh ZFS whole-stripe write eliminates the need for battery backed controllers, but you still need the equivalent in the form of SSD ZILs to accelerate synchronous writes, which you just can't make any faster on spinning rust itself.
>>52086936
>What prevents me from buying a $40 case and a $50 mobo to achieve the same thing as a $400 NAS?
Nothing. You pay for the convenience of a turn-key solution in both hardware and software.
Nothing is stopping you from doing it yourself. There's plenty of OS options to choose from that are specifically designed for NAS work.
>>52089924
it's nice being able to pull all your files from any machine on your local network without worrying what workstations/laptops/whatever you have powered on, down for maintenance, etc.
using your primary workstation for storage is for poorfags, third party cloud are for jew/TLA shills.
Has anybody here done a FreeNAS setup with ZFS on server-grade SSDs? Could higher-end consumer SSDs work reasonably well in such a setup if access is mostly read-only?
I'd really like to avoid spinning rust if possible.
>>52089958
As long as it supports ECC, go hog wild. Since it's going to be living its life headless, you probably don't need integrated graphics as long as you have a video card lying around to bootstrap the whole thing with. Beyond that, the only consideration is really just idle and load power consumption, since your NAS is going to be running 24/7.
FreeNAS or NAS4Free?
>>52090304
4FreeNAS
>>52090155
server-grade SSDs are all about maximizing I/O rate at any cost, so you're retarded for considering them in a low-write personal environment.
go for Samsung 840 Pros at absolute most.
even Intel 750 drives are all NVMe over u.2/pcie card, which nearly no workstation boards support.
>>52086936
It's somewhat of the specialized hardware, but mostly it's the software. Even though there using Linux there web ui is pretty cool. Look at Synology's DSM and QNAP's QTS front ends.
>>52090379
Cool, I didn't know that. I thought commercial SSDs had higher quality flash with better write cycle count.
I don't get why workstations haven't picked up support for NVMe and PCI-E/M.2. I can think of several areas of workstation use where that level of throughput without the messiness of RAID would be welcome.
>>52087440
I have an 8 bay that worked great for a few years, now its fucked and their forums are completely dead with no assistance offered. Can no longer recommend
>>52090379
Why 840 and not 850?
>>52090450
NVMe over PCIe (m.2, u.2, or add-in card) has multi-GB/s bandwidth, but this is almost never achievable on workstation loads.
due to moderate access latencies (10s of microseconds) you need either very deep prefetch pipelines or dozens of I/Os queued from multiple threads to come close to saturating the links.
SATA isn't exactly great anymore, but NVMe isn't enough of an improvement for workstations at present to merit putting m.2 slots on everything.
>>52090593
my bad. 850 Pro is fine.
950 Pro (m.2) though is overkill on throughput and has thermal throttling issues.
don't even buy anything but maybe a pci raid controller; use an old desktop and install some nas or other distro. i ended up buying a small ssd too.
i have a problem, though, and would appreciate some help; looked for /hsg/ but one isn't up rn;
i have rtorrent/rutorrent on my nas, and this empty string folder has popped up when viewing the samba share from windows. I can't seem to find it in debian on the nas, and when I open the folder in windows, it just goes to the same place. if i try deleting, it starts deleting the whole music folder. it messes up folder scanning in fb2k and other media players. how the fuck do i get rid of this?
Ok, so theres a lot of dumb shit flying around on here about RAID 5. You a minumum of 3 hard drives. None of them are "redundant" The whole thing with this raid setup is that you have parity being written across all drives. It is a striped setup meaning that it distributes information across all drives. It will use more space for parity.
All parity writes serve to rebuild data incase of a hard drive failure. If one hard drive fails you can replace it and the parity writes from the other drives will recreate the data on the new disk in the array.
The disadvantage of running raid 5 is that it is slower at writing than the more common raid setups. The advantages are well, you don't have to worry so much about losing data due to a hardware failure.
>>52090873
>None of them are "redundant" The whole thing with this raid setup is that you have parity being written across all drives
That's redundancy, senpai.
>>52090873
> using N+1 bit of drive space to store N logical bits of data is not redundancy
OK.
>>52090873
>The disadvantage of running raid 5 is that it is slower at writing than the more common raid setups.
No it isn't.
1, 10 and 6 are all slower at writing.
Only 0 is faster.
The main disadvantage is that it's more prone to corrupt data.
>The advantages are well, you don't have to worry so much about losing data due to a hardware failure.
Again worse than 1, 10 and 6
The main advantage is that you don't lose too much storage to redundancy.
>>52088873
The most poorfag solution is a netbook, you can find them for like 10/20€ with broken screen, but you need (if you want serious 3.5" drives) an sata/USB converter and something to power up the drive.
>>52088917
I didn't need an explanation of what was happening on my PC, I know that the NAS can go up to 40 MB/s and then it's the bottleneck, on that particular case it's probably the shitty SD I was using since in normal days the PC downloads from the NAS at 11MB/s. I know how SD works, tomorrow will arrive my new 32GB 90MB/s SD
>>52090910
>>52090939
ok its redundancy, but not on the same level as mirroring your data.
>>52090989
well no shit, you're mirroring data with raid 1 and 10 and with 6 you're literally doing twice the amount of parity writes. of course its going to be slower. maybe saying that its slower than most common raid setups was not really true but still. theres that, my bad.
>>52086936
Well, generally a NAS case comes with a bunch of convienient shit, and they're setup so a normie could probably maintain them.
If you dont mind the extra work, get a cheap mobo, half decent CPU, some server memory and chuck a bunch of HDDs with a network card in there. You'll be golden.
>>52091508
>get a cheap mobo
>some server memory
Name a cheap mobo that takes ECC RAM.
>>52091642
Several amd asrocks do
>>52089191
Thx anon, ill check out the dell.
>>52091881
Keep in mind the Dell needs 200 volts to power on, and it uses obscene amounts of electricity. Buying an HP Proliant would be cheaper in the long run.
>>52091642
ASUS M5A97 LE
There are cheaper ones.
>>52088262
Perhaps not if you use a raspberry pi. Problem is you'd need extra boards for networking ports and possibly wifi so it'd probably end up pretty similar. May be possible to tweak your shit more than a normal locked down router though
>>52091963
rpi will make a gimp nas as it can't do high speed ethernet, might as well get a cheap nuc
>>52091963
>>52092100
Ubiquiti Edgerouter X has a 5W power draw, and only costs slightly more than a Pi at market value.
>>52091919
Oh shit, yeah i want something that works with a normal USA "civilian" outlet. Pic related.
I thought you could just use an old desktop computer? Is this hp proliant better than just using a old desktop?
>>52092154
>I thought you could just use an old desktop computer? Is this hp proliant better than just using a old desktop?
You can. I used an old 32 bit netbook for awhile. A purpose made server like the Proliant is better then a regular PC, but depending on what you want to do with it, you may not ever notice the difference.
>>52090379
>which nearly no workstation boards support
What do you mean? It's a PCIe device just like any other PCIe device. It's up to the OS to support it, not the motherboard. Unless you're talking as a boot device.
>>52088714
>he didnt talk about RAID 10
>>52086936
Wouldn't you have to buy memory, power supply, hard drives, CPU as well? But you are right, $400 is steep.
>>52089191
That 6850 is going to draw an assload of power...
>>52087041
Sending data over a network to a computer that writes everything to hard drives in a (raid 1? Idk it's been a while) is not special.
>>52086936
Nothing, most of those NAS solutions just have a lot of hot swap bays and the good ones are redundant and have battery back ups
anyone knowledgable in freenas care to take a look?
https://superuser.com/questions/1018591/route-traffic-from-jail-1-to-jail-2-on-host
>>52094268
I'm running one of my jails through a pptp vpn. Mpd5 runs unjailed on the host and upon connection the ip-up script modifies a jail specific routing table with setfib 1. Then I have pf filtering localhost traffic to prevent access to host and other jail services. This is the jail where I run transmission-daemon.
>>52095461
This is regular freebsd btw but I thought you might like to know how I solved it.
>>52095022
Thats what i use. Got a spare 1.5tb hdd plugged into my router and keep needed, but rarely accessed files on it. Tops out at 7-10MB/s but thats plenty considering i only spin up the drive 2-3times a month.
>>52086936
Do you trust hardware made by quality vendors (If you are not retarded)
Do you care about your raided data?
Buy quality not cheap/retarded.
While we're on the subject, I decided to go the low budget freenas route. Rate my build?
>>52095779
Looks fine
>>52087172
I know its supposed to say probox but I just see proboi
>>52095461
Well doesn't that mean that your freebsd host's traffic goes through the vpn though? I'd find it preferable the openvpn jail be a service any machine in the network, jail or not, can simply access as a gateway and have its traffic route therre. I suppose it might not be possible this way and I'll have to setup VPN on the host, but perhaps someone else has advice where to go with my routing issue on superuser.
I just build my own. AMD Athlon(tm) II X3 415e Processor, 3 cores 6gig ram. 60gig ssd for os and 5 x 2tb hdds in zfs raidz. Running ubuntu 12.04 server. Runs web server, torrents also i use webmin. In and old case with and 450w powersupply. 1gigabit nic. And i get over 100mb/s read and write
>>52096452
No because the hosts default route is still the same because I've modified mpd5 scripts to only alter routes on table 1 which is what the jail uses. From there you could probably set up some tunnel service in the vpn jail, like I could connect to its sshd and use it like a socks proxy right now if I wanted.
>>52095779
You are getting fucked HARD on that RAM. Get it off eBay instead. There's a ton of perfectly good DDR3 ECC for dirt cheap prices that was parted out of decommissioned machines. Also, the PSU is overkill. They work best at 50% of their rated capacity.
Is 4 drives too little for a RAID5 array? I'll be using a hardware RAID controller, what RAID type and what FS should I use for 4x4TB HDDs?
>>52099329
I'll be running FreeBSD by the way
>>52088551
Here's a stupid question...how often to you have to chance bad drives? Practicaly not in theory.
>>52099693
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
>I don't get why workstations haven't picked up support for NVMe and PCI-E/M.2.
The "Facebook machine" MacBook supports (and uses) NVMe.
/g/'s man children are so blind by hatred sometimes, that they miss enterprise level technologies introduced to consumer electronics.
>>52089539
>HP microserver gen8
>£160ish
Why the fuck is this 260 bongs in Norway?
>>52095779
>>52095798
Does that i3 support ECC?
I bought a 2 bay NAS a then pulled apart 2 of my external HDD's and put those in. It's small and has USB 3.0 where I can plug in an external HDD and press one button on the case to copy everything, plus it took about 2 minutes to setup after unboxing.
For a larger setup it would definitely be worth it to make a custom setup and if you were really frugal I suppose a small 2-4 HDD setup would be fine but really, it depends on what you already own.
>>52100974
NVMe is certainly no worse than SATA in any way, but the question is whether it's perceptibly better for typical workstation loads (i.e., single thread random reads/writes) -- and it's usually not.
Transfer speeds get nowhere close to even SATA 3.0 limits until you have dozens of simultaneously queued requests, which you only see with prefetch/read-ahead assisted copies of massive files or in server applications with many worker threads or explicitly juggled asynchronous IO.
>>52090873
>I don't know know what redundancy means
I bet you frequently correct people who call raid a back up as well.
>>52100974
>>52101710
> for comparison
end-user software needs to be massively rewritten for something like NVMe to be a useful improvement for consumers, since queue depths in the 1-4 region is what's happening 99+% of the time.
>running a small gen8 24/7 for a whole year increases my power bill by 140€
>i will never get cheap as fuck electronics and power like in the us of a
feels bad.
>2015/6
>RAID
Storage spaces are the new hotness
>>52101726
>> don't know know what redundancy means
You can have a spare drive to hotswap but in a 3 disk raid 5 there is no redundant disk as they are all in use
>>52101985
The fact they are "in use" does not matter. What matters is only two of them are crucial to the survival of the system. All 3 are there in case one of them fails. One drive does not add to the functionality of the system, it is there to protect fro failure. A redundant drive.
>>52102062
Parity
I'm thinking of grabbing 6 of these for a RAID5, am I getting ripped off?
http://www.amazon.ca/RE4-Enterprise-Hard-Drive-WD2003FYYS/dp/B002XW44QY/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1451322713&sr=8-10&keywords=wd
I just spent 10k buying a NAS for the company i work for....litrtally 1k in part and 9k for the casing...it's "ruggedized" lollllllllllllLLLLllLlLLlL
>>52103738
Am I gonna need some fancy mobo to connect 6 harddrives?
>>52103818
Lot's of cheap mobos come with 6 sata ports. Might need a usb stick to boot from though.
>>52103798
For a commercial NAS you're paying for the support and for a straightforward management interface.
Being able to properly install and configure services in 10 minutes instead of needing to invest 4 hours of reading man pages and googling around is pretty nice for people who aren't full-time admins.
>>52095779
Why not go for a Pentium?
>>52101624
Pentiums and i3s support ECC
>spending 40 bucks on a case
Just mount it on a plank of wood and throw it in a closet or somewhere.
I've been eyeing a Dell T20 for a FreeNAS+Plex box because they're cheap as hell right now ($170 for the base pentium model). I know that these things can take ECC RAM but is the RAM they come with ECC?
If it's possible to build something as decent for cheaper I'm open to that too but it just doesn't seem possible.
So would RAID 5 be best for wanting to use as much space as possible with most HDDs with a bit of redundancy/performance for like a home media server max (also file/mail server) and occasionally accessing files (through VPN) outside of home.
Don't have a PC and need a better storage solution than external HDDs taking up all my usb slots.
Pentium or i3 for a NAS+game streaming server?
Does the NAS/server actually need a graphics card to stream games?
