Benefits of HW RAID on NAS

[tsegreto]

I am building a NAS for and plan on running RAID 6 or RAID 10 for home use, here is what I am planning on building: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/9HGTLD

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel - Xeon E3-1230 V5 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($271.67 @ B&H) 
CPU Cooler: Noctua - NH-L9i 33.8 CFM CPU Cooler  ($39.15 @ Newegg) 
Thermal Compound: Arctic Silver - 5 High-Density Polysynthetic Silver 3.5g Thermal Paste  ($5.83 @ OutletPC) 
Motherboard: ASRock - E3C236D2I Mini ITX LGA1151 Motherboard  ($236.49 @ SuperBiiz) 
Memory: Kingston - ValueRAM 16GB (1 x 16GB) DDR4-2133 Memory  ($175.99 @ SuperBiiz) 
Case: Lian-Li - PC-Q25B Mini ITX Tower Case  ($109.99 @ B&H) 
Power Supply: Corsair - CXM (2015) 450W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply  ($34.99 @ Newegg) 
Case Fan: Noctua - NF-F12 PWM 55.0 CFM  120mm Fan  ($19.11 @ Newegg) 
Case Fan: Noctua - NF-A14 PWM 82.5 CFM  140mm Fan  ($20.97 @ Newegg) 
Total: $914.19
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-10-17 05:53 EDT-0400

 

Would I benefit from a hardware RAID controller? I am planning on using 4-6 4TB WD RED drives. If so, what are some recommended RAID controllers?

[leadeater]

What OS will you be using for this NAS?

 

If FreeNAS and will be using ZFS then hardware RAID cards should not be used at all unless flashed to IT (HBA) mode.

[BubblyCharizard]

the XEON is a little overkill for a NAS (unless you need ECC RAM) you could easily get away with an i3 7100(or 6100)

 

if using hardware RAID, the (protocol/physical) overhead is usually a bit lower, but can be more of a pain to add/remove devices from the array, as @leadeater suggested, using ZFS is probably the best option

[leadeater]

34 minutes ago, BubblyCharizard said:

if using hardware RAID, the (protocol/physical) overhead is usually a bit lower, but can be more of a pain to add/remove devices from the array, as @leadeater suggested, using ZFS is probably the best option

I actually prefer hardware RAID over ZFS, hardware RAID is also very easy to add and remove disks so long as you are using RAID 5 or 6. Hardware RAID does have poor scaling though once you get to 12-16 disks which is where ZFS starts to really show it's strength, hardware RAID performs much better than ZFS with low number of disks so long as you have active write-back cache.

 

The biggest reason I do not like ZFS however is not being able to add disks to existing vdevs so if you need to expand a pool's capacity you have to add an entire vdev to it which means you are striping across vdevs, good for performance but bad for resiliency. Adding a parity vdev also means you need a minimum of 3 disks as well. A lot of people recommend using lots of mirror vdevs in a pool to help over come the difficulty in expanding ZFS pools using other configurations and there is also a lower chance of a single vdev completely failing killing the entire pool, I disagree with this though if you have in the order of 60 disks or 30 mirrors as that is a lot of failure points to go wrong in which only one needs to for total data loss. Mirror vdevs also means you lose 50% usable capacity.

 

Basically I personally do not like ZFS compared to some other options but like all of them they all have Pros and Cons and I really like the fundamentals of ZFS but it's the finer points that turn me off from it, mostly around long term serviceability of it including expansion. Gluster + ZFS does seem like a good combination to compliment each other and alleviate some of the points I don't like about ZFS.

 

Disclaimer: Comments coming from someone who doesn't actively use ZFS, for the reasons above, so I might not be totally accurate.

[xc3ll]

A liitle of topic:

You might consider investing in a better PSU. I'm by no means one of the "oh, the PSU is the most important component"-Guys and usually recommend something like the CXM, but when assuming 24x7 operation, most consumer PSU's are prone to failure.

 

So I would recommend something high-quality with better efficiency and maybe a semi-active cooling solution. So the fan is only needed for peak-loads and will last much longer.

[geo3]

Be aware, RAID is not backup. RAID protects from hardware failure only.  If you care about your data, keep regular backups.

[tsegreto]

5 hours ago, xc3ll said:

A liitle of topic:

You might consider investing in a better PSU. I'm by no means one of the "oh, the PSU is the most important component"-Guys and usually recommend something like the CXM, but when assuming 24x7 operation, most consumer PSU's are prone to failure.

 

So I would recommend something high-quality with better efficiency and maybe a semi-active cooling solution. So the fan is only needed for peak-loads and will last much longer.

What PSU would you recommend?

[xc3ll]

1 minute ago, tsegreto said:

What PSU would you recommend?

I went for a Corsair RM(i)-series, because it's gold certified, has a 0 RPM fan mode and is not extremely expensive. Mine runs fine in 24/7 operation since I bought it around 2 years ago. And since they give you a 10 year warranty, they seem to have some confidence in their products

[tsegreto]

16 minutes ago, xc3ll said:

I went for a Corsair RM(i)-series, because it's gold certified, has a 0 RPM fan mode and is not extremely expensive. Mine runs fine in 24/7 operation since I bought it around 2 years ago. And since they give you a 10 year warranty, they seem to have some confidence in their products

Like this one: https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?item=N82E16817139136? What other ones are good? Is EVGA good? I only need like 500w, correct?

[xc3ll]

10 minutes ago, tsegreto said:

Like this one: https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?item=N82E16817139136? What other ones are good? Is EVGA good? I only need like 500w, correct?

Yeah, 500W are plenty for 4-6 drives. Thought there was a 550W version of the corsair rm, but couldn't find it on newegg... mhh...

 

As for alternatives: A friend of mine uses an evga and is happy with it, but in a gaming pc, which is not exactly the same as the continous workload of a NAS/Server. So unfortunately I can't say much about other brands, sorry.

[tsegreto]

Any other recommendations for PS or comments on HW RAID would be awesome and much appreciated.

[Pixel5]

why the expensive xeon?

 

even a ryzen 1500x has more performance with lower power consumption and price.

[tsegreto]

Plex transcoding/torrenting

[Mayaa]

Even a Ryzen 1700 is in the same price range with a lot more performance, especially for plex

[paddy-stone]

4 hours ago, Mayaa said:

Even a Ryzen 1700 is in the same price range with a lot more performance, especially for plex

Agree, for this price point I don't see xeons as a contender, unless ECC ram is needed. But some AM4 boards support ECC ram too, so ryzen 1600 or 1700 would be a viable alternative for sure. 1600 is ideal, very good price, If you need more threads go 1700. You will have plenty of oomph for plex and VMs with either of those, and the included cooler is more than good enough too for an OC to around 3.7/3.8Ghz.. assuming you have a decent airflow in your case also. I would choose a fractal node 804 for case, it's a bit more pricey, but lovely to build in and room for plenty of expansion for HDDs... I also use that in one of my NAS builds

 

The only problem is you need a GPU with a ryzen build, but a gt710 or 1030 or something would suffice IMO, if you are planning on transcoding then a newer GPU like the 1030/1050 might be better with hardware decoding for x265 IIRC.

 

EVGA g2/g3 PSUs are great and also have a zero fan mode, I use them in all my builds now, my server currently running a 650W as it was the same price as the 550 at the time I bought it.

[paddy-stone]

This is only a very quick knock up build, but includes a 240GB SSD for the VM storage, and 2x 4TB WD reds too, and still only comes a little above what you had. Hope it suffices https://pcpartpicker.com/list/4VrvPs

[Mcthunda820]

I agree with the Xeon being a bit overkill when you could get many cheaper CPUs with better performance. 

 

As far as hardware vs software raid, you need to first decide what OS and what kind of expansion you may need in the future. Hardware and software solutions can be a pain to upgrade depending on what you choose (see leadeater's comment above).

 

I personally have two NAS systems at the house. I have a hardware raid set on one because of the speed/convenience factors of virtualizing everything on ESXi. The other is long term storage that my family also uses. It is software raided with windows storage spaces. Speed wasn't a concern with the second NAS. Main reason was I wanted something really simple to use/troubleshoot. I do this crap for a living, the last thing I want to do when I get home is google the exact command or how-to I need to restore some files me or my wife accidentally deleted... On the windows box, it's a simple drag and drop from the hot backup storage to make everyone happy again!

[tsegreto]

Last computer I built was in 2008 with a Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 Yorkfield and I spent around $3000 on the whole thing - 9 years later it is running strong with only a few replacements. I am a fan of Intel processors (I have not had good experiences with AMD) - I want to be able to have (2) 1080p transcodes streaming at once, torrent, use Apple Air Play, SAMBA, and have room for expansion. Hence why I am going with a Xeon, I feel that it will be able to last for around a decade with 24/7 uptime and have enough power for nearly anything I want to do. If there's another Intel processor you think would meet my requirements better I would love to hear it.

[leadeater]

11 hours ago, tsegreto said:

Last computer I built was in 2008 with a Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 Yorkfield and I spent around $3000 on the whole thing - 9 years later it is running strong with only a few replacements. I am a fan of Intel processors (I have not had good experiences with AMD) - I want to be able to have (2) 1080p transcodes streaming at once, torrent, use Apple Air Play, SAMBA, and have room for expansion. Hence why I am going with a Xeon, I feel that it will be able to last for around a decade with 24/7 uptime and have enough power for nearly anything I want to do. If there's another Intel processor you think would meet my requirements better I would love to hear it.

I'd stick with that Xeon, there isn't anything better within $10-$20 of it in the i5 or i7 product stack and equivalently priced options lack hyper-threading. The exception to this is the i5-8400 and i5-8600k which would be better but then you have to work with limited motherboard options and actually being able to buy one of them.

 

Just so you are aware though the performance capability between Xeon and Core processors is identical, Core processors are typically faster since they get clocked higher. Going with a Xeon also doesn't have much to do with reliability either since CPU failures are very rare and the quality is no different between product stacks, they are all manufactured the same using the same equipment and materials. You go with Xeon for platform features like ECC/ECC Reg, multi socket, true AVX, vPro, Low power etc.

 

TL;DR Stay with that Xeon or get i5-8400/i5-8600k configuration requirements permitting.