100TB in this TINY case

[jakkuh_t]

 

[Tabimeter]

You kind of stole my idea. I'm building a Nas on plain Debain with CLI via ssh, but i wonder how you can boot without a GPU, do you set something in the UEFI or something? Current Nas state attached as photo .

[dbx10]

I have issues with this video:

 

• 12x5 = 60, not 100. Title is kinda misleading there.
• 16GB ram for 60TB raw capacity on TrueNAS will work, but it'll chug eventually and scrubs will be absolutely taxing and will take longer, defeating the purpose of data availability behind using RAID-Z

To clarify: The "rule of thumb" that every TB of hard drive needs 1GB of ram is not true, but 60TB on 16GB is walking a fine line in my experience.

Source:

https://wiki.freebsd.org/ZFSTuningGuide

Also change the damn title, like come on.

EDIT: thanks for changing the title, thumbnail still says 100TB though.

[Muffxd]

What is the point in using Non ECC RAM with ZFS? I think BTRFS or just EXT4 would probably be better with the RAM that is used here.

 

https://serverfault.com/questions/454736/non-ecc-memory-with-zfs-a-stupid-idea

 

 

[Needfuldoer]

Or you could go full stupid like I did and build up a retired enterprise server for even less! My R720 with dual 10 gig Ethernet, 40 gig Infiniband, 256 gigs of RAM, Quadro P400, redundant 750 watt 80 Plus Platinum power supplies, and dual E5-2650 V2s cost less than that machine (minus storage). I've got eight WD White 12 TB drives in a RAIDz2, because RAIDz1/RAID5 sketches me out on large-capacity drives.

 

You just have to not care about looks. Or chassis size. Or noise. And not too much about power consumption. (It idles at 170 watts, half of which is the drives.)

 

30 minutes ago, dbx10 said:

12x5 = 60, not 100. Title is kinda misleading there.

Maybe this build was originally intended to feature the 20 TB Seagate Exos drives?

[dbx10]

4 minutes ago, Muffxd said:

What is the point in using Non ECC RAM with ZFS? I think BTRFS or just EXT4 would probably be better with the RAM that is used here.

 

https://serverfault.com/questions/454736/non-ecc-memory-with-zfs-a-stupid-idea

 

 

ZFS doesn't require ECC to work at all, the people who spent thousands of hours of their lives engineering it have said so. In settings that are not mission critical a simple weekly pool scrub will suffice.

 

Yea sure a cosmic ray flipping a bit bla bla bla data corruption... we know. It happens. ECC and a motherboard certified for it almost doubles the price, and the point of the video was to undercut off the shelf solutions.

[Cylofive]

Hey, im doing something of the same with a work pc i threw some stuff into, is there any way to convert from windows 10 to true nas or something of the sort so i can get all the benefits but i cant lose the data on the drive

[Needfuldoer]

1 minute ago, Cylofive said:

Hey, im doing something of the same with a work pc i threw some stuff into, is there any way to convert from windows 10 to true nas or something of the sort so i can get all the benefits but i cant lose the data on the drive

You'll have to lifeboat the data off to another drive. There is no live migration from NTFS to ZFS.

[Cylofive]

Just now, Needfuldoer said:

You'll have to lifeboat the data off to another drive. There is no live migration from NTFS to ZFS.

Welp, time to lifeboat 1 and a half tb of data I guess

[AbydosOne]

13 minutes ago, Muffxd said:

What is the point in using Non ECC RAM with ZFS?

4 minutes ago, dbx10 said:

ZFS doesn't require ECC to work at all

A lot of AMD boards will support ECC DDR4 without anything special, and I don't think the cost is all that much more for standard UDIMM ECC RAM. Yeah, it probably doesn't matter in the medium term, but as someone who's lived through a lot of file corruption due to bad RAM (not on ZFS, mind you), I'll spend the few extra dollars up front.

 

I am curious how @jakkuh_t managed to get into the BIOS to set the RAM speeds/boot device order without a display out For anyone wanting to replicate exactly this, I would recommend getting JEDEC 3200MHz RAM instead of XMP/DOCP RAM, so the board picks it up without having to manually set it. Sure, timings will suck, but at least you're not gimping the Infinity Fabric.

[Aragorn-]

I'm surprised it booted! I thought machines would fail to post without a GPU. Certainly experienced that many times powering on with no GPU just gets a beep code and no boot!

[dbx10]

10 minutes ago, AbydosOne said:

A lot of AMD boards will support ECC DDR4 without anything special, and I don't think the cost is all that much more for standard UDIMM ECC RAM. Yeah, it probably doesn't matter in the medium term, but as someone who's lived through a lot of file corruption due to bad RAM (not on ZFS, mind you), I'll spend the few extra dollars up front.

Asrockrack server boards for ryzen support ECC udimms and they're about double the ROG board's price, but with the server features. The RAM cost is about 30% more and although I agree, the goal of the video here was probably to undercut the Synology stuff.

I'm rocking an X470D4U in my NAS right now, with 7x 4TB in Z2. 32GB of ECC UDIMMs at JEDEC 2666MHz wasn't cheap but I mean, I already spent 400$ on a motherboard and almost a thousand on hard drives, what's another 75$ for the correct error correcting ram?

Which brings me to this point @jakkuh_t: If you're already spending thousands on the hard drives, just do it properly at that point. Fucking send 'er. Server board and ECC ram is about a 200$ delta from the original price, and much better than anything Synology makes in that price range.

[Nystemy]

Meanwhile I have been setting up a Samba share on Ubuntu, and not gotten it to work, only to figure it were Windows that didn't have the necessary SMB "drivers" needed... Why I don't know...

But building a storage server is an interesting thing to do, though I am curious to how well different network speeds performs for using it as one's main file storage. Ie, have little to no local storage on the computer for anything.

 

I am planning on just going with gigabit, but suspect an upgrade to 10 gig is going to be more or less "needed", but would be interesting to see the differences explored a bit.

[dbx10]

4 minutes ago, Nystemy said:

But building a storage server is an interesting thing to do, though I am curious to how well different network speeds performs for using it as one's main file storage. Ie, have little to no local storage on the computer for anything.

 

I am planning on just going with gigabit, but suspect an upgrade to 10 gig is going to be more or less "needed", but would be interesting to see the differences explored a bit.

Gigabit is enough to mount an SMB share as a network drive on windows. You don't really notice a difference day to day, except maybe just loading times if your steam library is remote.

[Needfuldoer]

14 minutes ago, Nystemy said:

Meanwhile I have been setting up a Samba share on Ubuntu, and not gotten it to work, only to figure it were Windows that didn't have the necessary SMB "drivers" needed... Why I don't know...

If you were somehow setting up an SMB v1 share, then Windows 7 on up won't connect to it by default. (SMB v1 is full of unpatched security vulnerabilities, and was superseded long ago, so it's not installed by default anymore. It's still there as an available feature, but you have to go out of your way to install it.)

 

Otherwise, that doesn't make sense. SMB is the native language of Windows file sharing, there's no special "driver" or anything else you have to install.

[Mustahsin10]

Just wanted to know, is this NAS accessible in Local Network only or remote access is also possible?

If its local network only, then how to convert this NAS so that it can be accessible remotely? Any tutorial will be helpful.

[stab244]

Been looking for a compact case to build my future NAS but a little concerned about airflow and temps with this one.

 

Edit: Seems it's sold out now anyways. Should've expected that lol.

[Nystemy]

33 minutes ago, dbx10 said:

Gigabit is enough to mount an SMB share as a network drive on windows. You don't really notice a difference day to day, except maybe just loading times if your steam library is remote.

I don't play any games, so most such applications isn't even a concern of mine.

But I do suspect that some applications might consider 120 MB/s a bit lackluster at times.

 

31 minutes ago, Needfuldoer said:

If you were somehow setting up an SMB v1 share, then Windows 7 on up won't connect to it by default. (SMB v1 is full of unpatched security vulnerabilities, and was superseded long ago, so it's not installed by default anymore. It's still there as an available feature, but you have to go out of your way to install it.)

 

Otherwise, that doesn't make sense. SMB is the native language of Windows file sharing, there's no special "driver" or anything else you have to install.

Troubleshooting SMB is a fun experience, Windows isn't particularly good at spitting out errors, and Ubuntu/Samba aren't that well documented for how to configure stuff. Heck, I haven't even found a list of commands for the samba config file, or how samba actually interprets it and other potential issues worth keeping in mind. And most of the documentation on samba's own webbsite is out of date by 2 decades. Then we have how it works together with ubuntu and that isn't really documented either. And Microsoft's own documentation for SMB is literally, "troubleshooting SMB configuration issues is hard."

 

My own issues has simply been that the two computers more or less refuse to talk to each other. Though, for a while the ubuntu machine could access a shared folder on the windows one without issue... But that has since stopped working after setting up samba. _{(though, I don't think this particular thread is where I should ask for help regarding my file server issues. And I like prodding at issues over time and figuring things out in my own pace.)}

[dogwitch]

1 hour ago, Nystemy said:

Meanwhile I have been setting up a Samba share on Ubuntu, and not gotten it to work, only to figure it were Windows that didn't have the necessary SMB "drivers" needed... Why I don't know...

But building a storage server is an interesting thing to do, though I am curious to how well different network speeds performs for using it as one's main file storage. Ie, have little to no local storage on the computer for anything.

 

I am planning on just going with gigabit, but suspect an upgrade to 10 gig is going to be more or less "needed", but would be interesting to see the differences explored a bit.

that why i dump that option . ubuntu not fun for a file server at all. just a bit less worst then omv

[TrialMacameau]

Yo Jake, I found something that's way more easier.

 

Instead of SMB, you can also create a ZVol and use iSCSI Initiator to connect the TrueNAS machine to windows and act as a connected storage through SATA interface.

And it's also pretty simple to use that you don't even need to create a user in TrueNAS.

 

In your Pool, you can create a ZVol, give it a name, give it a size (not higher than 80% of the drive unless you enforce it), check or not the Sparse box which is going to let the ZVol partition grow as you put files in it.

Afterwards, go over to Services, and enable iSCSI Service and tick on the Start Automatically. Go to Sharing, Block Shares (iSCSI), and use the Wizard guide to setup the connection to the iSCSI block device. Give it a name, the Type, select the ZVol and the sharing platform (I recommend Modern OS).

On the Next page, you're gonna have to create a new Portal, leave the 2 out of 3 options empty but change the IP Address for access to 0.0.0.0 which means anyone can have access to this iSCSI block device as long as they know which IP it is.

On the next page, ignore the Initiator page.

And if everything is what you want, click on Submit.

 

In Windows now, open the start menu, type in iSCSI Initiator and launch it, it will ask you if you want to start the service on startup which your click on yes.

Inside the iSCSI Initiator Properties, in Quick Connect, Type in the IP address that TrueNAS uses and click on Quick Connect.

If the connection succeeds then you're done ! Click on Done, close the iSCSI Properties, and head on over to Disk Management.

You will be asked to Initialize the drive. Afterwards you can format the drive as if you simply connected a drive to your System through USB.

 

If you shutdown your TrueNAS system you will lose access to that Block share within 30 seconds since Windows tries to reconnect to that.

[aquova]

43 minutes ago, Mustahsin10 said:

Just wanted to know, is this NAS accessible in Local Network only or remote access is also possible?

If its local network only, then how to convert this NAS so that it can be accessible remotely? Any tutorial will be helpful.

By default, the way it was set up in the video it is available only on the local network. However, it is certainly possible to have it accessible from the open internet, although it requires configuration steps and you need to be aware of some possible security issues.

[aquova]

How do people feel about this build? I've been wanting to replace my current home server (a 10 year old Mac Mini that I use for local storage and LAN Plex/Jellyfin movie hosting mostly), and I've been wanting something around this form factor and usage. This seems to meet many of my requirements, but I'm curious if there's something else I should look.

[Nystemy]

Just now, dogwitch said:

that why i dump that option . ubuntu not fun for a file server at all. just a bit less worst then omv

I have started to consider just switching to TrueNAS, since that seems a lot more trivial in comparison.

 

Downside with TrueNAS is though that I more or less need another computer. Since the ubuntu machine more or less serves as my home server. Could split it into two VMs on top of a hypervisor, but there is plenty of people having had issues with such setups, especially when populating new disks, a bit of a chore to have to first forward it in the hypervisor _{(though a good hypervisor one could just forward the whole SAS/SATA controller and be done with it)}. Another subtle downside of TrueNAS is that it more or less only needs a 32 GB system disk and it won't use it for anything else than the OS in more or less read only fashion. So there I stood feeling stupid since one can't really just use a 512 GB SSD as a system disk and use the unused capacity for something else, like using TrueNAS as a hypervisor for a VM _{(it does have this as a feature)}, but splitting the system disk is a rabbit hole that plenty of people complain about already, and TrueNAS' "hypervisor" capabilities is honestly second to all. So those ideas went down the drain.

In the end, I have for the past months been rethinking my storage ideas of just setting up a second very small system as a storage server. _{(though, finding guides on low idle power consumption system builds is apparently not much of a thing... And I don't feel like buying every ITX/µATX board and low core count CPU on the market to find a decent combination that doesn't churn away 10's of watts doing nothing. My current ubuntu server is fine if it consumes a 50-60 watts "idling" since it more or less always have something running on it, it is a server after all. But I don't want another computer churning away a similar amount of power while doing actually nothing.)}

If only network file sharing "just worked"... There is FTP _{(simple, elegant and does almost everything I need)}, but I like encryption, and the encrypted version of it isn't supported by windows explorer...

[dogwitch]

1 minute ago, Nystemy said:

I have started to consider just switching to TrueNAS, since that seems a lot more trivial in comparison.

 

Downside with TrueNAS is though that I more or less need another computer. Since the ubuntu machine more or less serves as my home server. Could split it into two VMs on top of a hypervisor, but there is plenty of people having had issues with such setups, especially when populating new disks, a bit of a chore to have to first forward it in the hypervisor _{(though a good hypervisor one could just forward the whole SAS/SATA controller and be done with it)}. Another subtle downside of TrueNAS is that it more or less only needs a 32 GB system disk and it won't use it for anything else than the OS in more or less read only fashion. So there I stood feeling stupid since one can't really just use a 512 GB SSD as a system disk and use the unused capacity for something else, like using TrueNAS as a hypervisor for a VM _{(it does have this as a feature)}, but splitting the system disk is a rabbit hole that plenty of people complain about already, and TrueNAS' "hypervisor" capabilities is honestly second to all. So those ideas went down the drain.

In the end, I have for the past months been rethinking my storage ideas of just setting up a second very small system as a storage server. _{(though, finding guides on low idle power consumption system builds is apparently not much of a thing... And I don't feel like buying every ITX/µATX board and low core count CPU on the market to find a decent combination that doesn't churn away 10's of watts doing nothing. My current ubuntu server is fine if it consumes a 50-60 watts "idling" since it more or less always have something running on it, it is a server after all. But I don't want another computer churning away a similar amount of power while doing actually nothing.)}

If only network file sharing "just worked"... There is FTP _{(simple, elegant and does almost everything I need)}, but I like encryption, and the encrypted version of it isn't supported by windows explorer...

check out NetworkChuck on yt

[SidusSol]

I'm currently running a Synology DS 415play (4 drives, 2 raid 1 sets) and I used to use it for backing up customer files for web design etc and a plex server. I now mainly use it for personal files and plex server and I've been thinking of making my own NAS for a while so this vid was perfect but I have a few questions. Does True Nas support Plex install or have a store like Synology for apps? Does this support transcoding on the fly for streaming or would need a different cpu? My PC has two network cards on board (2.5gb & 1gb) if I build with a board that has the same can I run a network cable direct(crossover maybe) to get 2.5gb performance as I don't have a 2.5gb switch yet. Can you host game servers (Minecraft/ARK etc) on true nas. Any answers would be great!