Development web server and nas

[Foravis]

Hello guys,

I'm a web developer for over 10 years now and an enthusiast photographer. Since last month I'm thinking to build a system that will be a testing web server for my projects and also a storage space for my photos and files. At my job, I'm working with linux systems with apache, php, mysql databases. Besides the 50+ videos I've watched on the LinusTechTips channel, I have almost no experience in optimising the hardware resources for what I need. So... my question is... should I buy, let's say, a HP Proliant Micro server Gen9 or I could do better If I'll build the system myself. I'm starting with the following components:
- Pentium G4520 3.6GHz Socket 1151
- Asus H170M Plus Socket 1151
- Kingston HyperX Fury Black 16GB Kit 2x8GB DDR4 2400MHz
- Enermax Platimax 500W 80Plus Platinium Power Supply
- for storage I'll buy some Red WD
So... Is it overkill? Is it too weak? Is it better value for money that HP? 
If you need more info, I'll gladly answer.

Thanks for your help.

[Foravis]

Thanks for your reply, but I think that Dell is a bit too much and too big for my needs...

[conspiravision]

For a webserver and NAS I think it is a bit overkill.  Web servers, depending on what you're hosting (and how many hits you get a day) don't really require all that much of resources.  People are going to  tell you to get ECC for memory, which you can do but if you are going to put your NAS on like a samba share and use ext4 you should be okay I'd think.  

[Steveoc64]

Build it yourself is good.

 

Im not so sure about the Red WDs vs what you are trying to achieve ... they be NAS drives, which are optimised for NAS.  In which case, you probably want ECC memory as well ?

 

More info here on hardware selections for NAS, if you want to go the whole enterprisey hog :

http://www.freenas.org/hardware-requirements/

 

... it at least explains the bit about WD red vs blue drives, and how that might affect performance and stability is terms of NAS vs Desktop. Its a good read actually.  TL;DR of this is that real NAS dirves + ECC Ram + ZFS for the win. Thats a pretty big step though, and probably overkill.

 

However, if you want it primarily as a linux box to run as a web server, with a tonne of redundant storage for your photos, Id suggest this :

- cheap SSD as your boot / root disk

- 2 x some cheap 2TB drive, easy software raid using mdadm, and you can always add to it later.

 

If your data is photography related, then I would super recommend this setup for a few $$$ more  :

- AMD FM2+ board, with 4 RAM slots

- A10 78xx  APU

- 32GB  DDR3 @2400

- 500W sounds fine

- SSD  + a cheap 2TB raid

Put linux on it, and migrate your photo workflow over to darktable / rawtherapee

The AMD APUs work great with OpenCL to run a lot of the transforms and filters on the GPU.  Grab some online raw images from a medium format cameara like a Pentax 645, or some super detailed DNG samples from a Leica Monochrom, and watch how well these little APUs rip through that data under Linux.

 

Makes for an excellent photography studio + file server + web server + SQL server + web dev environment, all in one neat little box. Not expensive.

I actually prefer this setup to Mac + Lightroom. Features are similar, but the open source kit is much easier to script things together with.

 

 

Another option, lets say you just really need a super reliable web server and guaranteed file storage space and uptime for your projects :

- Rent a Linode or DigitalOcean server.  $20 a month, and you are set.

 

They are dirt cheap now, so you should have one anyway, just as a backup. Use your DIY setup as a dev / test machine, and then push it up to your main server for prod. That way you can experiment and muck around with your DIY server whenever you want, without disrupting your public facting sites.