Odd NAS idea vs traditional methods

[Trojanmantony]

Going to be setting up a low cost nas from spare parts I have collected over the years.  Mostly data storage, but I plan on it doing at least one transcode over network to kodi or chromecast devices if I go down the plex route, pull data off it for adobe editing, and dumping obs streams over network to it. I have two ideas to do, the first is a bit strange but could be interesting to see if it works.

 

Idea 1(lazy windows server):

-Windows 10

-throw all my random drives into a JBOD style span volume
-keep an archival drive that is larger than span that will act as a clone

-set automated backup to archival drive

-in event of failure in JBOD span, simply replace drive, add additional replacement drive to span, then move lost data back to spanned volume from archival drive(replacement will be same size or larger)

 

Pros:

-spanned drives and archival drive are readable by any windows machine and can be migrated to another machine in event of hardware failures without data loss

-windows is easy, set up will be done quickly

-adding drives to span is easy, and once I outgrow archival drive I can span that as well to increase it's size

-these volumes aren't tied to hardware config of the server

 

Cons:

-windows and the word uptime in the same sentence has always made me nervous

-"rebuilds" from archival drive will take forever

-potentially abysmal speeds because spanning drives and window's software raid implementation is a mixed bag I have read.

-limited software choices, less open source options for other things this server may end up doing

 

Idea 2:

-debian linux

-snapraid to span volumes

-fwbackup to move data to archival disk

-samba for file sharing over network, offsite back up, etc.

 

Pros:

-stability and historically good uptime

-snapraid seems to have a better implementation to prevent errors and data degredation and has more spanning options

-more control over scheduled backups
-much more can be done cheaply on linux as far as creating your own "cloud", hosting my own email server, etc.

 

Cons:

-unsure of ability to migrate spanned volume to another linux box in the event of hardware failure

-much longer set up

-steeper learning curve

 

I am morbidly curious as to how the first option could turn out, and I have been putting off the hassle of establishing idea 2 as I am a bit rusty with terminal work, linux has just gotten easier over time for normal things I rarely use the terminal except to install programs.

 

I am familiar with freenas and unraid and have been hesitant to use them for something so small.  Freenas I haven't used and it seems to have a steeper learning curve than unraid.  I am not going for a headless server, it will be in my rack under my desk so I will have it as the second input on my monitor and I have been a longtime user of synergy because I hate the cable spaghetti of kvm switches.  

 

I also plan to eventually have offsite backup via a friends router running wrt with sftp enabled for a usb hard drive.

 

hardware I will be using, boot drive will be a 64gb usb 3 flashdrive:

 

-phenom II x4 3ghz , 12gb ddr3, antec bronze 600 watt, lian li 4u rack case.

-3tb hgst ultrastar, 2x 1.5tb barracudas, 1 hgst deskstar, 1tb wd green, will be buying an 8tb archival drive soon

 

I am curious to see if anyone is interested in seeing how idea 1 can fair and I am willing to experiment with it as all the data I will be moving to it is already on drives on 3 machines so I can field test and not lose data short term, wont trust this system till I have had it running a few months.

[ProjectBox153]

I wouldn't trust Windows 10 with the task of a long uptime. Even my Windows Server 2012 R2 machine has only stayed up for about 60 days without bluescreening. Windows 10 likes it's restarts. 

[SCHISCHKA]

25 minutes ago, Trojanmantony said:

-unsure of ability to migrate spanned volume to another linux box in the event of hardware failure

you can do this.

26 minutes ago, Trojanmantony said:

-much longer set up

setting up linux is arguably faster. the longest part is downloading.

27 minutes ago, Trojanmantony said:

-steeper learning curve

possibly but theres plenty of documentation and instructions are as easy as copy/pasting commands from a wiki

28 minutes ago, Trojanmantony said:

-windows and the word uptime in the same sentence has always made me nervous

id only be concerned about the way windows 10 updates if you dont have the server or business editions

29 minutes ago, Trojanmantony said:

-snapraid seems to have a better implementation to prevent errors and data degredation and has more spanning options

have a look at BTRFS

 

 

 

[Trojanmantony]

 

you can do this.

setting up linux is arguably faster. the longest part is downloading.

possibly but theres plenty of documentation and instructions are as easy as copy/pasting commands from a wiki

id only be concerned about the way windows 10 updates if you dont have the server or business editions

have a look at BTRFS

 

 

 

BTRFS seems cool but I have only seen it implemented with freenas, does the parity writing effect writing performance?

[SCHISCHKA]

4 hours ago, Trojanmantony said:

BTRFS seems cool but I have only seen it implemented with freenas, does the parity writing effect writing performance?

BTRFS is pretty new, parity is not stable, only striping and mirroring is stable on BTRFS. Iv used both mirror and striping and I cant tell any difference from using mdadm except BTRFS is a lot more useful because you can add and remove any number of drives and convert between mirror and stripe while the disks are mounted. Right now Im using striping and if I run out of disk space I can easily add another disk without having to re-partition and move files.

FreeNAS uses ZFS, BTRFS is only available on linux where freeNAS is BSD

[Trojanmantony]

I ended up getting an unraid license and making things easy on myself.  Thanks for the replies guys

[samiscool51]

On 2017-5-10 at 7:58 PM, Jamiec1130 said:

Even my Windows Server 2012 R2 machine has only stayed up for about 60 days without bluescreening.

2012R2 is very stable, we have a system that had it preloaded when it was first released, it still works to this day (why wouldn't it?), the hardware might be f**ked, MemTestX86 it, it's probably RAM,

anyways, it's annoying to figure out what OS you are going to use as a NAS OS

i usually weigh it with these criteria:

1. what OS's is most dominate on the network?

2. what OS has the features you need? and how well do they work with your current setup?

3. how easy are they to manage, is their interface simple or advanced? (GUI or command line (cmd or terminal))

4. how much can you automate the server, are these tools  built into the system, third party downloads or custom (if you know some command line commands)

5. how well does it preform with the tasks you intend to do?

this is some of them

i have at least 2-300 criteria i go with and if all of the boxes are ticked, it's the choice for you!

sorry if this is too much for you to do, i don't use this list often and only use it when deciding a new OS for a new or existing server...

[Jarsky]

On 5/10/2017 at 9:58 PM, Jamiec1130 said:

I wouldn't trust Windows 10 with the task of a long uptime. Even my Windows Server 2012 R2 machine has only stayed up for about 60 days without bluescreening. Windows 10 likes it's restarts. 

 

That means you have an incompatibility somewhere or possibly a hardware fault. Part of my job is managing about 3000 windows servers, and they dont just BSOD like that. 

I also have a lab at home and none of the machines just bluescreen themselves. 

[AshleyAshes]

What you may want to look at is FlexRAID, it's an unconventional snapshot based storage system that allows you to easily expand storage.  I wouldn't use it for highly important data but for a media collection it's ideal.  My own server is detailed here, it's built from spare parts and a gaint case and runs Windows 10 Professional.  It's even using recycled SODIMM ram in a DIMM motherboard.   As for stability, in my experience it's rock solid.  Even if it's just desktop Windows, it really just sits there and just runs what few programs it requires and it's SMB services.  Windows is surprisingly good at sitting around and doing almost nothing.   The uptime counts are rarely amazing but that's because I leave automatic updates enabled so every week or two it power cycles itself but that's my own choice as the operator.

 

You will likely find that FlexRAID provides a MUCH better solution than that archive drive you were considdering

 

 

[Trojanmantony]

7 hours ago, samiscool51 said:

2012R2 is very stable, we have a system that had it preloaded when it was first released, it still works to this day (why wouldn't it?), the hardware might be f**ked, MemTestX86 it, it's probably RAM,

anyways, it's annoying to figure out what OS you are going to use as a NAS OS

i usually weigh it with these criteria:

1. what OS's is most dominate on the network?

2. what OS has the features you need? and how well do they work with your current setup?

3. how easy are they to manage, is their interface simple or advanced? (GUI or command line (cmd or terminal))

4. how much can you automate the server, are these tools  built into the system, third party downloads or custom (if you know some command line commands)

5. how well does it preform with the tasks you intend to do?

this is some of them

i have at least 2-300 criteria i go with and if all of the boxes are ticked, it's the choice for you!

sorry if this is too much for you to do, i don't use this list often and only use it when deciding a new OS for a new or existing server...

I looked at a lot of these to qualify server operating systems as well!  For me, low cost, expandibility, and growth are what I went for.  I kinda psyched myself out of unraid for a bit, was looking to do a linux or windows box and self define my drive array redundancy but I enjoy graphical menus for doing things because I don't have as much time as I used to to learn bash.  For my job I build systems for customers and often they need dedicated nas so I know a lot about the hardware requirements and what controllers and such are unraid compatible.  At least with unraid I can operate it with a pretty easy gui and the redundancy is already there no set up needed, just isn't a free option.  FreeNas is cool and all but I enjoy the out of the box usability for unraid also learning about some of what it can do in software is amazing.  Had no idea in browser vnc was a thing.  Might configure a freenas system for a friend of mine for my offsite back up and his own backup needs/playground.

 

I was going for something not headless but after mucking around the unraid webgui I just run it headless and for stuff I want to run within linux I simply vnc on in within browser so synergy or kvm is not needed.  Definitely worth the price.

[samiscool51]

2 hours ago, Trojanmantony said:

I looked at a lot of these to qualify server operating systems as well!  For me, low cost, expandibility, and growth are what I went for.  I kinda psyched myself out of unraid for a bit, was looking to do a linux or windows box and self define my drive array redundancy but I enjoy graphical menus for doing things because I don't have as much time as I used to to learn bash.  For my job I build systems for customers and often they need dedicated nas so I know a lot about the hardware requirements and what controllers and such are unraid compatible.  At least with unraid I can operate it with a pretty easy gui and the redundancy is already there no set up needed, just isn't a free option.  FreeNas is cool and all but I enjoy the out of the box usability for unraid also learning about some of what it can do in software is amazing.  Had no idea in browser vnc was a thing.  Might configure a freenas system for a friend of mine for my offsite back up and his own backup needs/playground.

 

I was going for something not headless but after mucking around the unraid webgui I just run it headless and for stuff I want to run within linux I simply vnc on in within browser so synergy or kvm is not needed.  Definitely worth the price.

ubuntu server is an option, i don't use it but i think it has a GUI for most of it's server tools

[Trojanmantony]

1 minute ago, samiscool51 said:

ubuntu server is an option, i don't use it but i think it has a GUI for most of it's server tools

now that they are going back to gnome i may try it out, stopped using ubuntu after lucid lynx because of my disdain for the higher system requirements and at the time ubuntu was less stable than debian  so i switched to debian squeeze.  I am sure it is different now haha.

[ProjectBox153]

10 hours ago, samiscool51 said:

2012R2 is very stable, we have a system that had it preloaded when it was first released, it still works to this day (why wouldn't it?), the hardware might be f**ked, MemTestX86 it, it's probably RAM,

 

9 hours ago, Jarsky said:

 

That means you have an incompatibility somewhere or possibly a hardware fault. Part of my job is managing about 3000 windows servers, and they dont just BSOD like that. 

I also have a lab at home and none of the machines just bluescreen themselves. 

It was an Nvidia driver crashing. It was becoming harder and harder to use because of how slow it got. But I let it run, as it's my main Folding machine.