just brew it! wrote:For a file server I would strongly recommend going with a platform that supports ECC RAM ... My inclination would be to go for an AMD
absurdity wrote:Is thing going to be mission critical?
SecretSquirrel wrote:As far as ECC memory that someone else mentioned, unless you are doing this for a high reliability environment and have the budget, don't bother. Yes, you run the risk of the occasional random reboot, but you are talking about something that might happen once or twice a year.
TechNut wrote:ECC in modern servers is more about working through a chip failure than random bit flips. Sure, it could happen, but the most likely scenario is the server reboots, versus data corruption.
TechNut wrote:I'm not against ECC RAM. I think it has its place. For home and semi-pro uses though, I think the price gap is crazy. 16GB, last time I checked was over 200$ for decent DDR3 ECC, whereas you can get the same speed, non-ECC for 45$ (Newegg Black Friday).
TechNut wrote:For small amounts it might be ok, but, it makes a purchase that much more expensive for not much gain at home. The performance is 2% less with ECC, and the risk of data corruption is so low, its not a worry for most home applications. Remember, normal memory has CRC checking built in, and can correct single bit flips. ECC is designed to fix 2 bit flips.
TechNut wrote:RE: the OS and more a chance of data corruption, well, that's not 100% true. Every page of memory has bits set which tell the OS what the protection is, etc. Those get flipped, well you get your crash. Also, memory is a mix of instructions and data, so, if instructions get messed up, the application will crash. However, the CRC in the memory will catch that so you really need something bad to happen to generate multiple bit flips i.e. bad chip.
TechNut wrote:Take a look at this link...
http://www.jedec.org/category/technolog ... ddr4-sdram
Looks like CRC is in there, or at least will be for DDR4.
Beelzebubba9 wrote:If this is just a home file server, it'll be hard to justify (from a cost perspective) what you're building out unless you need some insane (20+TB) amount of usable space or high IOPS for block level storage. A single 2U QNAP TS-859 Pro can hold 24TiB of raw disks, will cost less than what you've spec'd, and probably be more reliable. Or at least you can call support if you break it. They're quiet compared to most rack mount chassis, come with redundant PSUs, and consume very little power, and have a ton of features (like Time Machine, iSCSI, BitTorrent server support, etc). We use them at my workplace for cheap big dumb storage for data we don't want to fill up our six figure production SANs with.
Building your own storage can be fun, but you'd be surprised at how many caveats there can be if you want it to be fast and reliable on the scale I think you seem to be looking for.
Jingles wrote:FYI I will be using lots of small, 500GB or 1TB, drives so that when a drive fails it won't take as long to re build the array, because the problem with larger drives is the longer they take to rebuild the higher the chance is of another drive failing which could potentially wipe out all of the data on the NAS depending on what sort of RAID configuration is used.
Jingles wrote:FYI: It's for a file/media server. And no I can easily justify it, maybe it might be hard for you because your poor? I can build a NAS box cheaper than I can buy one for actually, and it will be just as reliable. What makes you think my build will probably be unreliable? Maybe your builds suck but I have built many computers that have lasted me years without any upgrades or anything breaking. I can build a NAS with a redundant PSU and it will still be cheaper than what I can buy one for. I'm smart enough to provide my own support thanks, maybe you might need support, but I don't because I'm the one building the system from the ground up so I will know it inside out since I know every part that goes into the build and I'll be able to support myself if anything goes pear shaped. Go ahead and buy a pre built NAS if you want to waste a bunch of money.
Care to name the "many caveats"? I don't think I'd be surprised. It's not rocket science, maybe for you it might be. I'll bet you any money that I can build a NAS that is more reliable, faster, and cheaper than you could build or buy.
FYI I will be using lots of small, 500GB or 1TB, drives so that when a drive fails it won't take as long to re build the array, because the problem with larger drives is the longer they take to rebuild the higher the chance is of another drive failing which could potentially wipe out all of the data on the NAS depending on what sort of RAID configuration is used.
just brew it! wrote:I understand the motivation, but there are also some downsides to this approach. You'll have more noise, higher power consumption, more heat, and increased risk of drive failure (since you've got more of them). Your cost per GB is also going to be higher since 500 GB drives are well below the $/GB sweet spot these days, and you may also lose some performance due to lower density platters.
I could maybe see going with the 1 TB drives... but definitely not the 500 GB ones.
Flatland_Spider wrote:Management and interoperability with other systems are more difficult with a homebrew system like this.
Flatland_Spider wrote:You don't get a nice GUI if you build it yourself, and you have to know what you're doing to get stuff to work together.
Flatland_Spider wrote:This entire process is much simpler if you hang your boot drive off the SATA ports, or USB port, on the motherboard, and you don't have to restore your OS as well as your data.
The larger drives also make it easier to justify running the array in RAID 10 or RAID 01. Either of those RAID levels handle large amounts of disk IO better then RAID 5 or RAID 6, which are peaky.
Jingles wrote:Heat isn't a problem if it's managed properly, I'll manage it properly. Install enough fans and placing the NAS somewhere where it is cool and there is ample air flow will go a long way to keeping it cool enough. Using WD red drives which run cooler than other drives.
Jingles wrote:Maybe 1-2 TB drives are the go then, I wouldn't want to trust lots of data to 3 or 4 TB drives thats just too much risk.
Jingles wrote:[three useful pieces of information mixed in with personal insults]
Users browsing this forum: MSNbot Media and 1 guest