To NAS or not to NAS

[HollowP357]

I recently built a new computer, finally replacing my 2600k. Now I need advice on whether I should repurpose my old computer into a NAS/MediaServer(Plex) or just use my new computer to do everything effectively retiring my old faithful 2600k.

 

New computer:

CPU: Ryzen 9 3900X

MOBO: Gigabyte x570 Aorus Elite Wifi

RAM: G.Skill 32GB 3600

 

Old Computer:

CPU: I7-2700k with 16GB RAM

 

 I currently run my media library off of a single 6TB WD My Book, but would like to expand my storage and have some measure of redundancy for pictures and other items that I also have stored on that disk.

 

The 3900x is currently my gaming/streaming(Twitch) rig, with the streaming portion being the main reason that I choose the 3900x, as I didn't want to build a dedicated streaming computer. This computer also acts as my Plex server.

 

Also, in addition to this if I use the 3900x what Windows based storage application should I use? Drive Pool + Snap Raid, Storage Spaces etc...

 

If I use the 2600k I will more than likely being using UnRaid but am open to other options as well.

 I have 6 3TB Hard Drives that I plan to use for storage.

 

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Dedayog]

I had my Plex running off my main system but got tired of installing games, driver, etc and having to restart.  This interrupted Plex streams and data transfers.  Just not an efficient use of resources.

 

Just easier to leave the old machine running as your server IMO.

[Windows7ge]

If there's one thing I don't recommend people do it's have their desktop double as a NAS/File Server. These are two things you shouldn't really mix for a variety of reasons (reliability, serviceability, uptime, inturruptions, etc)

 

You don't need very powerful hardware for a NAS I think it'd be a great way of giving the old hardware a new purpose. Personally I don't understand why so many people's first go to is UnRAID when there are almost equally functional free alternatives.

 

If you don't need virtualization I'd go with FreeNAS.

If you need virtualization I'd go with PROXMOX.

[quickhakker]

12 minutes ago, Windows7ge said:

If there's one thing I don't recommend people do it's have their desktop double as a NAS/File Server. These are two things you shouldn't really mix for a variety of reasons (reliability, serviceability, uptime, inturruptions, etc)

 

You don't need very powerful hardware for a NAS I think it'd be a great way of giving the old hardware a new purpose. Personally I don't understand why so many people's first go to is UnRAID when there are almost equally functional free alternatives.

 

If you don't need virtualization I'd go with FreeNAS.

If you need virtualization I'd go with PROXMOX.

cant you even do a bodge nas style thing with windows and have it set up a lot quicker?

[Windows7ge]

14 minutes ago, quickhakker said:

cant you even do a bodge nas style thing with windows and have it set up a lot quicker?

If you're only working with one HDD or are using Storage Pools or Hardware RAID you could share a HDD/Array on the network or with Windows Server configure a proper SMB share.

 

Really though a lot of Linux distributions today come with very comprehensive WebUI's and use File Systems with better features than NTFS. (Like ZFS or BTRFS though now Microsoft has ReFS).

 

But that's no reason to be afraid of pure CLI either. It's not as hard as it looks.

And it's all free.

[Retrodex Gaming]

Always NAS. 

 

In the process of making a second one for my rack, building from scratch as its gonna be my backup domain controller, and the NSS4000 (Hateful ghastly machine) serving as my current NAS is dog slow!

[HollowP357]

Thanks for the replies. I was already leaning in the direction of the dedicated NAS, now I am more so. 

Quote

You don't need very powerful hardware for a NAS I think it'd be a great way of giving the old hardware a new purpose. Personally I don't understand why so many people's first go to is UnRAID when there are almost equally functional free alternatives.

My first choice was Freenas, I've used it professionally in other small projects, but haven't really used it since 2011. From things that I've been reading there is a RAM to storage recommendation for ZFS of 1 gb RAM per 1 TB of storage. Is that accurate?

[quickhakker]

2 hours ago, Windows7ge said:

If you're only working with one HDD or are using Storage Pools or Hardware RAID you could share a HDD/Array on the network or with Windows Server configure a proper SMB share.

 

Really though a lot of Linux distributions today come with very comprehensive WebUI's and use File Systems with better features than NTFS. (Like ZFS or BTRFS though now Microsoft has ReFS).

 

But that's no reason to be afraid of pure CLI either. It's not as hard as it looks.

And it's all free.

the one thing that put me off doing a linux based NAS thing was cause all systems on my network are windows systems and im not sure how good the cross talk it between linux and windows, plus im a bodger so 

[Windows7ge]

2 minutes ago, quickhakker said:

the one thing that put me off doing a linux based NAS thing was cause all systems on my network are windows systems and im not sure how good the cross talk it between linux and windows, plus im a bodger so 

SAMBA. SAMBA is responsible for bringing SMB support (which is Microsoft Windows primary network file sharing protocol) to Linux. It does a fine job for most setups and applications but in some cases it does have more overhead than true SMB.

 

For any 1Gbit network though you should have no trouble saturating the link with large file transfers between a Linux server and Windows Clients.

 

In fact if you've ever owned a NAS or other small network storage device in most cases those devices were running some shaved down distribution of Linux and were likely using SAMBA.

[quickhakker]

1 hour ago, Windows7ge said:

SAMBA. SAMBA is responsible for bringing SMB support (which is Microsoft Windows primary network file sharing protocol) to Linux. It does a fine job for most setups and applications but in some cases it does have more overhead than true SMB.

 

For any 1Gbit network though you should have no trouble saturating the link with large file transfers between a Linux server and Windows Clients.

 

In fact if you've ever owned a NAS or other small network storage device in most cases those devices were running some shaved down distribution of Linux and were likely using SAMBA.

TIL, still that wont stop me from doing bodge 

[Windows7ge]

9 minutes ago, quickhakker said:

TIL, still that wont stop me from doing bodge 

To each their own.

[AngryBeaver]

I would have to agree with the general opinion here. Turn it into a NAS and if you also use plex at all this would make for a very good plex box just from the software encoding alone. 

 

A few other things you can easily do with it if running linux (or windows with a vm).  Run a pihole server on it to sinkhole all the ads and data harvesting programs. You could also use it as a vpn for wireless connections (like phone). I suggest that because a lot of the new mobile unlimited plans limited the quality of video streaming. If you use a vpn you can get around this restriction and aslong as your upload is decent this shouldn't be an issue. If you run both options you also gain pihole coverage on your mobile devices!

 

Another idea is if you have the bandwidth and play one of the many games that allow player hosted servers this would also make for a good dedicated server box. 

 

The uses and convenience offered by a second machine like this are endless.