NAS or Dedicated Server?

[CGPC-Kieran]

So I'm Thinking of building a single NAS Server for recording 4K Game Footage to, or a dedicated Server that will run as ubuntu / samba, any suggestions on what i should choose product wise, i have a small budget but i want your ideas on what can be done, 10gbps are on both pc's render and gaming, so a 10gbps port would be amazing.

[TheKDub]

What would you be using the server for?

 

You could build the server and still use it as a NAS easily.

[CGPC-Kieran]

Just now, TheKDub said:

What would you be using the server for?

 

You could build the server and still use it as a NAS easily.

Recording Video footage from In game to the server itself, i understand the use of the NAS servers and some are cheap and slow, the idea of an ITX build has come to mind, but speed is key as input file size will be in 4k, and as we live in apartments we are looking for a quiet build also as a key aspect.

[davidna2002]

it would depend on your ability to manage one vs the other.  go with the one you feel most comfortable with.

[Daan101]

you know, FreeNAS supports VM's in its latest version, so you know there is that, do keep in mind the learning curve is rather big if you are new to this whole server thing

[njmyers3]

I wouldn't buy a prebuilt NAS like synology unless you have no idea how to build a PC. I'd build a full server with Ubuntu and just run Samba. Plus if you decide to expand it later on, either in capacity or functionality, you can easily do that with Linux.

[CGPC-Kieran]

Just now, njmyers3 said:

I wouldn't buy a prebuilt NAS like synology unless you have no idea how to build a PC. I'd build a full server with Ubuntu and just run Samba. Plus if you decide to expand it later on, either in capacity or functionality, you can easily do that with Linux.

I wouldn't buy a pre build NAS as building a pc and installing Ubuntu/Samba would be cheaper to use as a NAS ,the server itself will sit idle until its told what to do I'm not a big fan of running direct Linux as RC2012 is more my style, i am walking into a new area with Ubuntu and Samba but for server wise, Windows RC server OS I have used more times than i can count but the problem with RC OS is a large size install hence the use of Ubuntu and Samba for storage,

[njmyers3]

3 minutes ago, CGPC-Kieran said:

I wouldn't buy a pre build NAS as building a pc and installing Ubuntu/Samba would be cheaper to use as a NAS ,the server itself will sit idle until its told what to do I'm not a big fan of running direct Linux as RC2012 is more my style, i am walking into a new area with Ubuntu and Samba but for server wise, Windows RC server OS I have used more times than i can count but the problem with RC OS is a large size install hence the use of Ubuntu and Samba for storage,

Ubuntu is a pretty easy Distro to learn. You can also use a web interface such as Webmin (which I personally like) to make management easier. You could also run Windows on the bare hardware and host VM servers with virtualbox.

 

Personally I like to separate my storage from the rest, so I have a standalone storage server running Ubuntu, and then a separate VM server for everything else. A lot of the VMs store their data on the storage server.

EDIT: And the VM server should be running a bare metal hypervisor for the best efficiency. I'd recommend XenServer, but most people use VMware's V-Sphere.

[CGPC-Kieran]

3 minutes ago, njmyers3 said:

Ubuntu is a pretty easy Distro to learn. You can also use a web interface such as Webmin (which I personally like) to make management easier. You could also run Windows on the bare hardware and host VM servers with virtualbox.

 

Personally I like to separate my storage from the rest, so I have a standalone storage server running Ubuntu, and then a separate VM server for everything else. A lot of the VMs store their data on the storage server.

wouldn't using a VM take longer to manage rather than direct network transfer, inside windows we can see network storage devices directly, rather than running a VM and having to access its desktop or the machine remotely?

[njmyers3]

3 minutes ago, CGPC-Kieran said:

wouldn't using a VM take longer to manage rather than direct network transfer, inside windows we can see network storage devices directly, rather than running a VM and having to access its desktop or the machine remotely?

Using a VM will degrade the disk performance a little bit, and I wouldn't recommend it, but it's possible if you absolutely need to run multiple servers on one machine. What do you specifically need to do in Windows?

 

Maybe I wasn't clear. I meant you could run the storage server in a VM. Then you can just map it like normal in Windows.

[CGPC-Kieran]

1 minute ago, njmyers3 said:

Using a VM will degrade the disk performance a little bit, and I wouldn't recommend it, but it's possible if you absolutely need to run multiple servers on one machine. What do you specifically need to do in Windows?

 

Maybe I wasn't clear. I meant you could run the storage server in a VM. Then you can just map it like normal in Windows.

I will simply make a flow chart using text.

 

4K Game Recording from gaming rig -> real time Transfer via 10GB Network Ports To Server -> Server will write 4k files to disc at 200mbps.

 

After recording
4k read files accessed via network -> transferred in real time access to studio editing software -> rendering will transfer new write files to the server via the network.

Real time editing will be the main problem I will face, but that is why I would like to build the server using Ubuntu/samba.

[njmyers3]

 

1 minute ago, CGPC-Kieran said:

I will simply make a flow chart using text.

 

4K Game Recording from gaming rig -> real time Transfer via 10GB Network Ports To Server -> Server will write 4k files to disc at 200mbps.

 

After recording
4k read files accessed via network -> transferred in real time access to studio editing software -> rendering will transfer new write files to the server via the network.

Real time editing will be the main problem I will face, but that is why I would like to build the server using Ubuntu/samba.

That's pretty much what I do. So you don't need VMs? I would definitely run Ubuntu on the server itself if you don't need VM's or Windows features.

[CGPC-Kieran]

Just now, njmyers3 said:

 

That's pretty much what I do. So you don't need VMs? I would definitely run Ubuntu on the server itself if you don't need VM's or Windows features.

yeah, VM software for the server use would just be useless, all it needs is the performance with write and read via the network, that is why I titled it Nas or Dedicated Server,  welcome to my problem-solving stage, on what to choose.