Hi All
I' really need to move a substantial chunk of data off my home machine onto some central repository so it can be accessed from multiple machines and my home machine doesn't have to be on all the time. So, the obvious decision to me is to buy/build some form of NAS solution.
My requirements are:
- It must attach to the Network (I don't want firewire or USB)
- It must have large capacity (around 1 gig would be great)
- It must support at least RAID 1 but RAID 5 would be preferable to scale
- It must be as quiet as possible
I've been looking at the TerraStation from Buffalo which seems to be ideal but the reviews are luke warm and the transfer rates are not exactly stellar.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this matter?
Thanks in advance!
Home NAS with RAID 5
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
Hi Kaizen I bought a Buffalo TerraStation about a month ago but my PC is still being built so I cannot comment on its capabilities. I think I will stick it in the garage so sound will be of little bother for me... but I will get back to you as soon as everything is up and running (should be just a few more weeks... I hope 
).
).Hey, I've also been looking into getting a significant amount of NAS on my home network for general media storge as having to search through a stack of 600 cd's to find stuff can be extremely tedious, not to mention the rather unpredictable nature of CDRW's life-span.
I've found the cheapest option by far is to get a bare-bones PC, bung a few nice drives in and stick it somewhere you can't hear it. (Like the garage/basement)
For less than £300 (not including VAT
) i can get 640gb of space, easily expandable to ~ 1800gb
Courtesy of Ebuyer.com
Case: £4
PSU: 300W - £7
Mobo (incl Video): £20
CPU: Duron 1600 - £27
HSF: £2
RAM: 256mb DDR333 - £17
CDROM: £8 (Difficult to install OS without one....)
PCI IDE Controller: £11 (space for 8 more drives)
Gigabit LAN Card: £7
Total: £103 ~ $200 US
Drives: 4x 160Gb = £43x 4 = £173
Total (incl drives): £276 ~ $450
For ~ 640 CD's of storage space!
That rig can handle 12 IDE drives, though you might want to upgrade the PSU if using more than 4.
The RAID 5 part comes in by using an OS that can do software RAID 5, most of the BSD's can do it, some variants of linux, and more importantly Windows XP and Server 2003 can both be easily modded to support RAID 5.
As all the CPU would be doign is RAID 5 calcs and I/O handling I think the Duron could handle it fine.
The best thing is that adding more space is even cheaper, so with 8 drives even acounting for space used in parity data you can still get ~1TB for £450.
I used 160gb drives are they are the best Gb/£ at the moment.
Also, as it's on gigabit ethernet it should be just as fast, if not faster than local storage (Assuming you have a gigabit LAN of course)
The only reason I don't have one of my own right now it that i don't have £300 to burn
As for a quiet goes, the drives are seagate baracudas, you can probably run the CPU passive without too much hassle and the system only really needs one 120mm case fan.
(First post BTW)
I've found the cheapest option by far is to get a bare-bones PC, bung a few nice drives in and stick it somewhere you can't hear it. (Like the garage/basement)
For less than £300 (not including VAT
) i can get 640gb of space, easily expandable to ~ 1800gbCourtesy of Ebuyer.com
Case: £4
PSU: 300W - £7
Mobo (incl Video): £20
CPU: Duron 1600 - £27
HSF: £2
RAM: 256mb DDR333 - £17
CDROM: £8 (Difficult to install OS without one....)
PCI IDE Controller: £11 (space for 8 more drives)
Gigabit LAN Card: £7
Total: £103 ~ $200 US
Drives: 4x 160Gb = £43x 4 = £173
Total (incl drives): £276 ~ $450
For ~ 640 CD's of storage space!
That rig can handle 12 IDE drives, though you might want to upgrade the PSU if using more than 4.
The RAID 5 part comes in by using an OS that can do software RAID 5, most of the BSD's can do it, some variants of linux, and more importantly Windows XP and Server 2003 can both be easily modded to support RAID 5.
As all the CPU would be doign is RAID 5 calcs and I/O handling I think the Duron could handle it fine.
The best thing is that adding more space is even cheaper, so with 8 drives even acounting for space used in parity data you can still get ~1TB for £450.
I used 160gb drives are they are the best Gb/£ at the moment.
Also, as it's on gigabit ethernet it should be just as fast, if not faster than local storage (Assuming you have a gigabit LAN of course)
The only reason I don't have one of my own right now it that i don't have £300 to burn
As for a quiet goes, the drives are seagate baracudas, you can probably run the CPU passive without too much hassle and the system only really needs one 120mm case fan.
(First post BTW)
Welcome to SPCR !!!
rofl. there is absolutely no way you would get that kind of performance from a duron doing software raid. bear in mind that it's also got to run the operating system which is getting in between it and the disks.
i am sure that the gigabit card that you have spec'ed there is not PCI-E and even if it was, 'faster than local storage' ? even in an ideal world without overheads i think ur getting ur bits and bytes mixed up.
have u ever tried passive cooling a duron? particularly with the hot air of at least 5 hard drives. your solution will require an additional hard drive for the o/s u see, unless of course u run it in a ram disk booting from CD or CF but then u'll probly want more ram...
Kaizen - PCPro had something about this in the june issue, i'll have a look in the morning.
Bear wrote:As all the CPU would be doign is RAID 5 calcs and I/O handling I think the Duron could handle it fine.
Also, as it's on gigabit ethernet it should be just as fast, if not faster than local storage (Assuming you have a gigabit LAN of course)
As for a quiet goes, the drives are seagate baracudas, you can probably run the CPU passive without too much hassle and the system only really needs one 120mm case fan.
rofl. there is absolutely no way you would get that kind of performance from a duron doing software raid. bear in mind that it's also got to run the operating system which is getting in between it and the disks.
i am sure that the gigabit card that you have spec'ed there is not PCI-E and even if it was, 'faster than local storage' ? even in an ideal world without overheads i think ur getting ur bits and bytes mixed up.
have u ever tried passive cooling a duron? particularly with the hot air of at least 5 hard drives. your solution will require an additional hard drive for the o/s u see, unless of course u run it in a ram disk booting from CD or CF but then u'll probly want more ram...
Kaizen - PCPro had something about this in the june issue, i'll have a look in the morning.
Hey, I'm only guessing as i havn't actually got the cash for the system yet.
Your right, the system would need another drive for the OS. Doh! Still, 40Gb 7200 RPM ones can be had for less than £30 so it doesn't add much more cost.
I don't have much experience with passive cooling so maybe i was being a little optomistic, still if the system is tucked away in the garage/basement noise doesn't matter too much.
Surly local storage is only about 40-50 mb/sec on a good day, sustained anyway. GbE provides 100mb/sec of bandwith so thats not a limitation even with a cheap card it should get atleast 600mbit/sec.
I realise the PCI bus is only 133mb/sec, split equally this still leaves over 60mb/sec each for the LAN card and IDE card, and bear in mind that atleast some of the drives aren't connected to the PCI bus as they run stright off the chipset.
Latancy/seek time would obviusly be slower than local but for the intended application, media serving, it should perform just like a local drive.
Or am i missing something?
Obvoisly a chipset with on-board, off-the-PCI-bus GbE would be nicer, but you can't get them for £20
Anyhow, that system must atleast outperform the Terrastation like devices, and its certainly cheaper £/Gb wise.
Your right, the system would need another drive for the OS. Doh! Still, 40Gb 7200 RPM ones can be had for less than £30 so it doesn't add much more cost.
I don't have much experience with passive cooling so maybe i was being a little optomistic, still if the system is tucked away in the garage/basement noise doesn't matter too much.
Surly local storage is only about 40-50 mb/sec on a good day, sustained anyway. GbE provides 100mb/sec of bandwith so thats not a limitation even with a cheap card it should get atleast 600mbit/sec.
I realise the PCI bus is only 133mb/sec, split equally this still leaves over 60mb/sec each for the LAN card and IDE card, and bear in mind that atleast some of the drives aren't connected to the PCI bus as they run stright off the chipset.
Latancy/seek time would obviusly be slower than local but for the intended application, media serving, it should perform just like a local drive.
Or am i missing something?
Obvoisly a chipset with on-board, off-the-PCI-bus GbE would be nicer, but you can't get them for £20
Anyhow, that system must atleast outperform the Terrastation like devices, and its certainly cheaper £/Gb wise.
Bear, there MAY be an alternate possibility, though purely theoretical.
A generic NAS Linux-on-CD that loads itself into your RAM. Since no such Linux exists yet AFAIK, you'd need to borrow another drive to create one, but it's feasible.
BTW, if anyone DOES know of a good NAS Linux-on-CD, please let me know.
A generic NAS Linux-on-CD that loads itself into your RAM. Since no such Linux exists yet AFAIK, you'd need to borrow another drive to create one, but it's feasible.
BTW, if anyone DOES know of a good NAS Linux-on-CD, please let me know.
-
sgtpokey
- *Lifetime Patron*
- Posts: 301
- Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2002 11:29 pm
- Location: Dublin, CA / Liverpool UK
BobDog,
Regarding the Buffalo terastation, some poster on Amazon said that the Raid 5 speeds were pretty slow and upon investigation he confirmed with Buffalo that the Terastation used a software based Raid-5 and not a dedicated hardware solution.
You may want to watch out for that, IIRC he was getting single digit write speeds in RAID-5 and so ended up using the 2 500gb RAID-1 configuration rather than the single 750gb Raid-5 configuration.
EDIT:
the link is here:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... s&n=507846
Regarding the Buffalo terastation, some poster on Amazon said that the Raid 5 speeds were pretty slow and upon investigation he confirmed with Buffalo that the Terastation used a software based Raid-5 and not a dedicated hardware solution.
You may want to watch out for that, IIRC he was getting single digit write speeds in RAID-5 and so ended up using the 2 500gb RAID-1 configuration rather than the single 750gb Raid-5 configuration.
EDIT:
the link is here:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... s&n=507846
-
sgtpokey
- *Lifetime Patron*
- Posts: 301
- Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2002 11:29 pm
- Location: Dublin, CA / Liverpool UK
An alternative to the terastation (but pricier) is this:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1 ... 275,00.asp
The discussion on it is here (includes comparison to the Terastation from the guys who make the above linked product):
http://discuss.extremetech.com/n/main.a ... &msg=74081
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1 ... 275,00.asp
The discussion on it is here (includes comparison to the Terastation from the guys who make the above linked product):
http://discuss.extremetech.com/n/main.a ... &msg=74081
This is Sam Feng, Product Marketing @ Infrant Technologies...
We have been asked this question before and below are some of the key differences between the ReadyNAS 600 and the Terastation:
Performance - By incorporating a 4 Channel SATA Controller and a Hardware RAID accelerator directly on the CPU, the ReadyNAS is up to 59% faster on writes and 102% faster on Reads. In comparison, the Terastation relies on IDE drives and Software RAID.
Recently I developed a need to get myself a Home NAS too. Have been looking into ready available products (Buffalo, Linksys, ...). Nice, but ...
The thing is, I also like to consolidate as much functions as possible (bandwidth management, router, printserver, file server, web server, firewall, content filter, ...) onto a single allways-on low-noise and energy efficient machine with as little moving parts as possible. Actually, if it were a plant, it would be a cactus. Anyway, I ended up with the following idea (and, no, I do not need terabytes):
* Mini-itx cube sized case, with 1 dvd and 1 or 2 hdd bays
* Laptop style fanless psu 60 watt
* Epia PD 6000 fanless board (dual lan) with as little memory as possible
* 2.5" hdd say 40 Gbyte would suffice for me for the moment
* ide flashdrive
* future expansion with ide/sata raid card and extra drives
* linux distro like clarkconnect home edition for all the functions I mentioned above.
Couldn't help sharing.
PS: for the rest it should be a plain network, no domain controller, ldap or things like that.
The thing is, I also like to consolidate as much functions as possible (bandwidth management, router, printserver, file server, web server, firewall, content filter, ...) onto a single allways-on low-noise and energy efficient machine with as little moving parts as possible. Actually, if it were a plant, it would be a cactus. Anyway, I ended up with the following idea (and, no, I do not need terabytes):
* Mini-itx cube sized case, with 1 dvd and 1 or 2 hdd bays
* Laptop style fanless psu 60 watt
* Epia PD 6000 fanless board (dual lan) with as little memory as possible
* 2.5" hdd say 40 Gbyte would suffice for me for the moment
* ide flashdrive
* future expansion with ide/sata raid card and extra drives
* linux distro like clarkconnect home edition for all the functions I mentioned above.
Couldn't help sharing.
PS: for the rest it should be a plain network, no domain controller, ldap or things like that.
I would agree with steef. Mini-itx is hard to beat for a home NAS. Low power consumption, fanless, good variety of small cases, integrated network/video.
The main advantage it has over an off-the-shelf NAS is the ability to run other applications. Mine gets used a lot as a download manager. I've written a little program that allows me to send it URLs of files to download. This can be from work (so the file is waiting when i get home) or from my laptop at home, allowing my laptop to be switched off over night.
The main advantage it has over an off-the-shelf NAS is the ability to run other applications. Mine gets used a lot as a download manager. I've written a little program that allows me to send it URLs of files to download. This can be from work (so the file is waiting when i get home) or from my laptop at home, allowing my laptop to be switched off over night.
If you want RAID in a small box, I don't think you could beat this...
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23619
6 x 2.5" drives in a single 5.25" bay. I've just got to convince the better-half that I need 6 x 100GB disks
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23619
6 x 2.5" drives in a single 5.25" bay. I've just got to convince the better-half that I need 6 x 100GB disks
-
trpltongue
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 10:10 am
- Location: Houston
I just built myself a server based on the LSI Megaraid 150-6 SATA card. The card allows online capacity expansion and online raid migration. My parts list was as follows:
Abit NF7-S2..............................$60
AMD T-bird 1700+ (leftover)......$0
512MB Kingston PC2100 ram......$0
nvidia Geforce2 Mx400 video......$0
LSI MegaRaid card 6-port...........$249
250GB WD SATA HDD's x 6........$660
80GB WD IDE HD x1..................$20
Antec SLK3700AMB....................$81
............................System Total $1,070
Basically the same price as the software based Buffalo product. However, this setup utilizes full hardware raid so no problem with transfer speeds and is a full 500MB larger so I can have a hotspare and parity and still have 1TB of space. Also, the most important and convenient part is that I can have a hot spares, hot swaps, raid migration, online capacity expansion, etc. because of the hardware raid card. Something that the Buffalo product does not offer.
I would strongly suggest you consider the quality of the raid solution if you're truly going to use Raid 5. There is no point in using data redundency if the redundency is likely to fail
Russell
Abit NF7-S2..............................$60
AMD T-bird 1700+ (leftover)......$0
512MB Kingston PC2100 ram......$0
nvidia Geforce2 Mx400 video......$0
LSI MegaRaid card 6-port...........$249
250GB WD SATA HDD's x 6........$660
80GB WD IDE HD x1..................$20
Antec SLK3700AMB....................$81
............................System Total $1,070
Basically the same price as the software based Buffalo product. However, this setup utilizes full hardware raid so no problem with transfer speeds and is a full 500MB larger so I can have a hotspare and parity and still have 1TB of space. Also, the most important and convenient part is that I can have a hot spares, hot swaps, raid migration, online capacity expansion, etc. because of the hardware raid card. Something that the Buffalo product does not offer.
I would strongly suggest you consider the quality of the raid solution if you're truly going to use Raid 5. There is no point in using data redundency if the redundency is likely to fail
Russell
Just one other thing to share ...
It seems a lot of people stake their faith on RAID. This is good, because a system with RAID is much better secured against harddisk failure. Which is of course, very important
However, there are many other types of system failure which may end up in losing all your data.
* User error
* User error
* User error
* Powercut.
* Lightning
* Failure of hardware components (PCI RAID cards, motherboards)
* ...
There is only one solution to such kind of failures: back-up your data, do it often, and keep it in a safe place. And when you back-up your data, you will not need the Redundancy. An Array of Inexpensive Disks can't be that bad however.
Now to the controversial: if you need to back-up a lot of data, you should consider the value of that data and whether you can afford to lose most of it. Probably you can ... If you can't - become a librarian to keep the costs down.
For backing up moderate amounts of data an external USB drive and DVD writer do the job (remember to keep your end-of-day back-ups a week or up to a month and discriminate between static and dynamic data).
It seems a lot of people stake their faith on RAID. This is good, because a system with RAID is much better secured against harddisk failure. Which is of course, very important
However, there are many other types of system failure which may end up in losing all your data.
* User error
* User error
* User error
* Powercut.
* Lightning
* Failure of hardware components (PCI RAID cards, motherboards)
* ...
There is only one solution to such kind of failures: back-up your data, do it often, and keep it in a safe place. And when you back-up your data, you will not need the Redundancy. An Array of Inexpensive Disks can't be that bad however.
Now to the controversial: if you need to back-up a lot of data, you should consider the value of that data and whether you can afford to lose most of it. Probably you can ... If you can't - become a librarian to keep the costs down.
For backing up moderate amounts of data an external USB drive and DVD writer do the job (remember to keep your end-of-day back-ups a week or up to a month and discriminate between static and dynamic data).
Last edited by steef on Thu Jun 09, 2005 6:03 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
trpltongue
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 10:10 am
- Location: Houston
steef,
That's a good point.
The data that is irreplaceable (pictures, etc) I burn to DVD on a regular basis. I've been looking into a used tape drive in addition to the RAID. RAID only covers you from disk failure (which is the usual culprit of lost data). In addition I have a UPS to prevent loss of power and protect against lightning strikes. It is a blessing in these days to have digital media, but it's also a curse to keep valuable information safe and secure.
Russell
That's a good point.
The data that is irreplaceable (pictures, etc) I burn to DVD on a regular basis. I've been looking into a used tape drive in addition to the RAID. RAID only covers you from disk failure (which is the usual culprit of lost data). In addition I have a UPS to prevent loss of power and protect against lightning strikes. It is a blessing in these days to have digital media, but it's also a curse to keep valuable information safe and secure.
Russell
I've never used any sort of RAID. I've never had so much data that it warrants a RAID. I prefer just sticking all of my important data on a single drive--with regular backups to drives in my workstations.
If you're concerned with power consumption and noise level, seriously consider whether you actually need more than one hard drive in your file server.
One problem I have with RAID compared to a single drive solution is that it increases the likelyhood of a hard drive failure. That means buying a replacement hard drive is going to happen more often.
If you're concerned with power consumption and noise level, seriously consider whether you actually need more than one hard drive in your file server.
One problem I have with RAID compared to a single drive solution is that it increases the likelyhood of a hard drive failure. That means buying a replacement hard drive is going to happen more often.
-
trpltongue
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 10:10 am
- Location: Houston
Isaac,
If you don't have enough data for multiple drives, consider yourself lucky
I have been amassing almost 30GB of pictures every 6 months with my daughter and other subjects. 6MP cameras take very big pictures, especially when you don't use compression. I take raw pics because I can edit them in photoshop to correct any white balance or hotspotting problems.
If you don't have enough data for multiple drives, consider yourself lucky
I have been amassing almost 30GB of pictures every 6 months with my daughter and other subjects. 6MP cameras take very big pictures, especially when you don't use compression. I take raw pics because I can edit them in photoshop to correct any white balance or hotspotting problems.
You could always try something like this...
http://mini-itx.com/projects/fsrs/
Given that it is based off of a PD10000 Mini-ITX board, it pretty much meets the 'cool and quiet' mandate (although the drives may be noisy). Personally, I'd do the project with SATA drives and a SATA RAID card.
Hey...I need a file server and I have a network rack in the garage and a bunch of spare parts...hmmm.
-Derek
Given that it is based off of a PD10000 Mini-ITX board, it pretty much meets the 'cool and quiet' mandate (although the drives may be noisy). Personally, I'd do the project with SATA drives and a SATA RAID card.
Hey...I need a file server and I have a network rack in the garage and a bunch of spare parts...hmmm.
-Derek