1st NAS Build

[cpotter638]

Hello. I'm looking for a storage solution. Have a friend with similar needs. He recently purchased a QNAP TS-459 Pro II. I began looking into similar pre-build NAS units. I then became intrigued at building my own. I've researched and built computers in the past. I've had little problems with our basic home network. The idea of building a NAS and expanding our home network sounds fun, but also a little daunting.

Current needs for NAS:

Music storage:
We have a whole home control system (Control4). Control4 (C4) distributes music to all rooms in the house. Currently, music files are stored on the C4 drive. However, storage space on the C4 is limited. So, all music (mp3 format) will be stored on the NAS. I do not use ITunes. C4 will pull music from the NAS when needed for distribution. Ideally, there will be little to no lag time when C4 accesses music. Will C4 have to "wake-up" the NAS drive to pull music? This may affect NAS hardware chosen or software setup.

Music external to our home:
I listen to music at work via my laptop. It would be nice to access my home NAS at work via the internet to play music. Is this possible? This would depend on the network speed at work (which can be less than ideal at times). As such, this may not be the best option. I assume the other option would be syncing the NAS music with my laptop? From what I’ve read, this could be done with Rsync? If necessary, how difficult is it to set up Rsync? Even if I don’t play music via the web, I would like web access to the NAS if possible.

Video storage:
Includes home video, standard DVD, and Blu Ray. Movie collection is not very extensive; however, we will probably expand this over time. For video distribution, we will be using C4 in combination with a Dune media player. Combo of C4 & Dune will pull from NAS. Given other storage needs, video volume will probably dictate overall size of NAS.

Storage of photos and other documents:
Will access files on NAS from our home computers. I currently have both a laptop and desktop running Windows7. We were also recently given 2 Mac's for free. I have set the Mac's up with basic internet, email, etc. My knowledge of Mac's is otherwise very limited. I would like for all home computers (including Macs) to have access to the NAS. Kids computers to have access to the NAS, but with password protection.

Storage capacity & RAID:
Uncertain how many Terabytes we currently need. This will certainly grow over time. Ideally we would start relatively small with storage volume and grow over time (to reduce initial cost). However, it may be optimal to have more storage / drives than necessary in the beginning for RAID & data redundancy. I have not setup RAID previously. I fully understand that RAID does not eliminate the need for backup. From my understanding, RAID (depending on the setup) can protect data when there is drive(s) failure. This may influence how many (and size of) hard drives selected.

Backup:
This is a big item for me. I've started my initial research on DIY NAS. Lots of available info. But have found very little on backing up a NAS. I know that RAID does not equal backup. I've seen some options such as tape (too time consuming) & online backup (too expensive). My friend's QNAP was appealing as you can setup "remote replication". From what I've read, this seems to be a proprietary usage of Rsync?

What are the options for backup up the NAS? I want something that is reliable & if possible automatic. The only thing I've run across that works "automatically" is via Rsync. In this scenario I assume that I would set up a smaller NAS at a friend’s house (or work) and back up critical items via Rsync? I've seen discussions re: this method with some of the branded NAS, but not for DIY. Will this work with 2 DIY NAS's? Again, how hard to configure Rsync in this fashion? Do other “automatic” alternatives exist? I suppose I could live with something manual if it were easy to perform (such as hot swapping drives or backup to a large external hard drive) and automatic backup options are too cumbersome to setup.

These are a few of my initial questions. I wanted to address them before I start delving into hardware / software selections.

In short, my initial questions / thoughts:

• I can handle actual hardware build
• Software setup seems a little daunting. I’ve read a fair amount about FreeNAS. I should be able to handle this for basic setup. But I’m a little leery about more advanced setup (including Rsync).
• Suggestions for initial amount of storage and RAID configuration? Can I grow this / add drives with relative ease down the road? Or have to rebuild?
• Options for backing up the NAS?
• Can I access NAS via web?
• How much lag time when C4 wants to access NAS? Can this be adjusted with hardware selection and / or software setup?

Thanks in advance for all the help.
Chad

 

[GregN]

Hello. I'm looking for a storage solution. Have a friend with similar needs. He recently purchased a QNAP TS-459 Pro II. I began looking into similar pre-build NAS units. I then became intrigued at building my own. I've researched and built computers in the past. I've had little problems with our basic home network. The idea of building a NAS and expanding our home network sounds fun, but also a little daunting.

Current needs for NAS:

Music storage:
We have a whole home control system (Control4). Control4 (C4) distributes music to all rooms in the house. Currently, music files are stored on the C4 drive. However, storage space on the C4 is limited. So, all music (mp3 format) will be stored on the NAS. I do not use ITunes. C4 will pull music from the NAS when needed for distribution. Ideally, there will be little to no lag time when C4 accesses music. Will C4 have to "wake-up" the NAS drive to pull music? This may affect NAS hardware chosen or software setup.

Depends on your configuration, if configured for always on (generally the default) there should be no real lag. If you chose to go greener, you'll need to configure WOL, which will have a lag while the NAS comes out of standby.

Music external to our home:
I listen to music at work via my laptop. It would be nice to access my home NAS at work via the internet to play music. Is this possible? This would depend on the network speed at work (which can be less than ideal at times). As such, this may not be the best option. I assume the other option would be syncing the NAS music with my laptop? From what I’ve read, this could be done with Rsync? If necessary, how difficult is it to set up Rsync? Even if I don’t play music via the web, I would like web access to the NAS if possible.

There are three ways folks get internet access to their DIY NAS. They differ in their ease.


Web Access to NAS administration - very easy, just a matter of configuring your router.

FTP Access to files - Very easy, just configure and FTP server on your NAS, and open the ports on your router.

Web Access to files - More difficult, you need to run a webserver on your NAS, and generally have web configuration and files that point at your files. There maybe a linux/bsd package for this, I don't know.

Additionally, there are packages for web access to home music, for example AudioGalaxy, the cloud music player (installed under windows and points to your NAS) seems to be quite good.

Video storage:
Includes home video, standard DVD, and Blu Ray. Movie collection is not very extensive; however, we will probably expand this over time. For video distribution, we will be using C4 in combination with a Dune media player. Combo of C4 & Dune will pull from NAS. Given other storage needs, video volume will probably dictate overall size of NAS.

You've nailed what I think is the cause for most size creep in NASes. Being Gig Wired should address any performance issues. Are you running a managed switch? How much traffic is concurrent?

Storage of photos and other documents:
Will access files on NAS from our home computers. I currently have both a laptop and desktop running Windows7. We were also recently given 2 Mac's for free. I have set the Mac's up with basic internet, email, etc. My knowledge of Mac's is otherwise very limited. I would like for all home computers (including Macs) to have access to the NAS. Kids computers to have access to the NAS, but with password protection.

Need to run Samba for Windows, NFS for the Macs. Both have user level ACLs.

Storage capacity & RAID:
Uncertain how many Terabytes we currently need. This will certainly grow over time. Ideally we would start relatively small with storage volume and grow over time (to reduce initial cost). However, it may be optimal to have more storage / drives than necessary in the beginning for RAID & data redundancy. I have not setup RAID previously. I fully understand that RAID does not eliminate the need for backup. From my understanding, RAID (depending on the setup) can protect data when there is drive(s) failure. This may influence how many (and size of) hard drives selected.

You need to decide on ZFS filesystem versus Hardware RAID. ZFS is more accommodating to starting small and growing. Hardware Raid is a little more robust and has performance advantages (I feel, others differ). The difference is cost, a hardware raid controller versus inexpensive Sata HBAs. A good raid controller (LSI, 3Ware, Areca) will kick the butt of software raid, no matter the filesystem. So performance is the issue.

There is nothing to stop you from starting with one and moving to the other (or running both ), though raid migration tends to be a little more difficult.

Backup:
This is a big item for me. I've started my initial research on DIY NAS. Lots of available info. But have found very little on backing up a NAS. I know that RAID does not equal backup. I've seen some options such as tape (too time consuming) & online backup (too expensive). My friend's QNAP was appealing as you can setup "remote replication". From what I've read, this seems to be a proprietary usage of Rsync?

There are different definitions to Backup. I use my NAS as both primary storage, and for backup. Primary storage of entertainment media, and back of of home PC files to the NAS. I use free windows software to do this, SyncBack. I don't do offsite backups. The best system I've seen for bulk offsite are periodic copies to hard disks that are stored elsewhere. Most folks find their ISPs upspeed too slow to backup everything. Important items can be backed-up to the cloud, and this is a good option (well documented on SNB).

RSync is a discussion in and of itself. But is mostly used for over a LAN, not via WAN.

These are a few of my initial questions. I wanted to address them before I start delving into hardware / software selections.

In short, my initial questions / thoughts:

• I can handle actual hardware build - need to determine size
• Software setup seems a little daunting. I’ve read a fair amount about FreeNAS. I should be able to handle this for basic setup. But I’m a little leery about more advanced setup (including Rsync). - Tends to be straight forward, you know linux? FreeNas install is almost turn-key.
• Suggestions for initial amount of storage and RAID configuration? Can I grow this / add drives with relative ease down the road? Or have to rebuild?
• Options for backing up the NAS?
• Can I access NAS via web?
• How much lag time when C4 wants to access NAS? Can this be adjusted with hardware selection and / or software setup?

I think most of the other questions were addressed above.

Folks here are very helpful, and will generally help you before, during and after your build.

Greg

 

[zambalek80]

Hi cpotter638.
An interesting post you have opened here, these questions are in the back of my mind too, since I am now building my DIY NAS. Well ... actually still waiting for the hardware to arrive.
But I was thinking about continually updating my thread along the way. So sooner or later I'll be stumbling upon the sort of questions you have posted here.
If interested, you can find the thread here: http://forums.smallnetbuilder.com/showthread.php?t=6174

I agree with most of GregN's answers. Nonetheless let me throw in my opinion on a couple of them.

1) Storage capacity & RAID
Although hardware RAID is correctly regarded as unbeatable in terms of speed I do think there are advantages to ZFS (RAIDz1 and RAIDz2 that is) to consider. It is very flexible with regard to volume management and rather easy to administer. One big advantage over other RAID systems (be it hardware or software) is that it has an integrated RAID-subsystem, so it can differentiate between used and unused space. This saves you time when reconstructing a damaged RAID, since it only reconstructs areas occupied by data, whereas with other RAID-systems every bit of storage space is copied to the new RAID. Last but not least ZFS works on the basis of "copy-on-write" - which allows for very handy and easy snapshot management.
You need to consider however that ZFS is a 128-bit system. This means it can handle storage capacities beyond the world's needs (literally) but in return requires a 64-bit OS and at least 4GB of RAM to work fast enough.

2) Backup
This is my very personal opinion and how I handle my backups. I use external 3.5" HDDs of varying sizes to accommodate data from the NAS as a backup. So for instance I have a 2TB WD Drive for backing up my movies, a 320GB WD for my documents and so on. On my main computer I have a free software installed (Z-DBackup) with different jobs setup. Whenever I plug in any of the HDDs I choose the corresponding incremental backup job and away I go. Like this it doesn't really matter what you have on your NAS (data, other backups, the OS itself and what have you) as long as you correctly setup your backup jobs.
As far as I am concerned this is safe enough for me, as long as these external HDDs are safely stored away. For vital data of any sort I make at least one copy - rather two - to CD/DVD (which I would renew every 5 years or so) or another HDD.

Alrighty, I'll be subscribing to your thread then and hope you found my input helpful.

Cheers

 

[cpotter638]

Greg - Thank you very much for your reply. Your input is much appreciated.

Depends on your configuration, if configured for always on (generally the default) there should be no real lag. If you chose to go greener, you'll need to configure WOL, which will have a lag while the NAS comes out of standby.

Makes sense. In regards to overall build:

• Response time - Important. Willing to live with a little lag if it improves energy effeciency signficantly. Glad to know this is customizable. Can WOL be configured based upon type of media? For example - play music often -> want very little lag. Video will primarily be for kids -> they can wait a few seconds to improve energy effeciency.
• Energy effeciency - Important. Willing to pay more up front to make greener.
• Cost - Need to be conscious of pricing, but not #1 priority.
• Noise - Not important. Will be located in equipment closet.

There are three ways folks get internet access to their DIY NAS. They differ in their ease.

Web Access to NAS administration - very easy, just a matter of configuring your router.

FTP Access to files - Very easy, just configure and FTP server on your NAS, and open the ports on your router.

Web Access to files - More difficult, you need to run a webserver on your NAS, and generally have web configuration and files that point at your files. There maybe a linux/bsd package for this, I don't know.

Additionally, there are packages for web access to home music, for example AudioGalaxy, the cloud music player (installed under windows and points to your NAS) seems to be quite good.

Good to know that there are many options here. Probably something I'll address once I get the nuts & bolts setup.

You've nailed what I think is the cause for most size creep in NASes. Being Gig Wired should address any performance issues. Are you running a managed switch? How much traffic is concurrent?

I'll show my ignorance here. We had a local home automation company design / install our system with my input / needs in mind. Our current setup includes:

AT&T U-verse with "2-Wire" Modem / Gateway
Cat5e wiring throughout house. Co-ax, Cat5E, & Fiber to TV's
Cisco SF 102-24 24 Port 10/100 switch (unmanaged)
Cisco RVS4000 v2 Router

I can access both the AT&T gateway and Cisco router, but don't know where / how to verify traffic.

Need to run Samba for Windows, NFS for the Macs.

This is definately foreign to me at this point. However, I'm guessing this will not be too difficult to set up.

You need to decide on ZFS filesystem versus Hardware RAID. ZFS is more accommodating to starting small and growing. Hardware Raid is a little more robust and has performance advantages (I feel, others differ). The difference is cost, a hardware raid controller versus inexpensive Sata HBAs. A good raid controller (LSI, 3Ware, Areca) will kick the butt of software raid, no matter the filesystem. So performance is the issue.

There is nothing to stop you from starting with one and moving to the other (or running both ), though raid migration tends to be a little more difficult.

• Can you start small and grow with hardware RAID?
• How much difference in cost between the two (approximate)?
• Given my usage, how beneficial is increased peformance of hardware RAID?
• What about difficulty of setup between hardware RAID & ZFS? I recently read a forum posting somewhere (unsure of location & date of posting) commening that ZFS was more difficult to setup. This post also indicated that ZFS was more difficult to find support / help when things go wrong. Any truth to this?
• Would prefer to not run both. Prefer to avoid RAID migration.

There are different definitions to Backup. I use my NAS as both primary storage, and for backup. Primary storage of entertainment media, and back of of home PC files to the NAS. I use free windows software to do this, SyncBack. I don't do offsite backups. The best system I've seen for bulk offsite are periodic copies to hard disks that are stored elsewhere. Most folks find their ISPs upspeed too slow to backup everything. Important items can be backed-up to the cloud, and this is a good option (well documented on SNB).

RSync is a discussion in and of itself. But is mostly used for over a LAN, not via WAN.

I need some type of backup (in addition to local PC's & NAS). My main concern would be lightning which could destroy both PC's and NAS. External HD backup would solve this. Only problem is that this is not automatic. This may however be the best option.

I currently use Dropbox.com to back up my important documents. However, this will no longer work with NAS due to size. I could still use Dropbox for important files & potentially music; however, I would have to find an alternative backup method for other larger volume important items (primarily home video of kids).

I will have to research cloud backup. I assume dropbox is a form for this. I also assume that cloud backup for the ENTIRE NAS would be cost prohibitive (and probably unnecessary)?

Am I correct in assuming the main role of Rsync would be to sync items between home computers and NAS (both on LAN)?

I can handle actual hardware build - need to determine size

Once I get a handle on some things, I may ask for suggestions for sizing.

Software setup seems a little daunting. I’ve read a fair amount about FreeNAS. I should be able to handle this for basic setup. But I’m a little leery about more advanced setup (including Rsync). - Tends to be straight forward, you know linux? FreeNas install is almost turn-key.

Turn-key is good. I don't know linux. Have been tempted to learn previously (primarily when I was using Windows Vista). I guess it's time to learn.

Thanks again for all your help.

 

[cpotter638]

zambalek80 - I did find your input very helpful. Thanks for your comments.

1) Storage capacity & RAID
Although hardware RAID is correctly regarded as unbeatable in terms of speed I do think there are advantages to ZFS (RAIDz1 and RAIDz2 that is) to consider. It is very flexible with regard to volume management and rather easy to administer. One big advantage over other RAID systems (be it hardware or software) is that it has an integrated RAID-subsystem, so it can differentiate between used and unused space. This saves you time when reconstructing a damaged RAID, since it only reconstructs areas occupied by data, whereas with other RAID-systems every bit of storage space is copied to the new RAID. Last but not least ZFS works on the basis of "copy-on-write" - which allows for very handy and easy snapshot management.
You need to consider however that ZFS is a 128-bit system. This means it can handle storage capacities beyond the world's needs (literally) but in return requires a 64-bit OS and at least 4GB of RAM to work fast enough.

Hardware RAID vs. ZFS:

• I understand hardware is better for speed. In my application, how advantageous is the speed difference?
• "Easy to administer". So, setup / maintenance of ZFS not signficantly more difficult than hardware RAID?
• I understand ZFS being faster when reconstructing a damaged RAID. However, this is probably more important for a business who needs to be back up fast. When I have to restore the RAID, my main issues would be 1) making sure no data is lost & 2) ease of reconstruction (combination of software difficulty and amount of time I have to spend). I can however live with decreased dowtime of NAS and increased "computer time" in reconstruction. Hope I'm making sense here. How does ZFS compare to hardware RAID in this regard?
• "Last but not least ZFS works on the basis of "copy-on-write" - which allows for very handy and easy snapshot management." - You've lost me here. What do you mean by "snapshot management"?
• ZFS requiring 64-Bit OS - What are the ramifications of this? Increased hardware cost I assume? Does this signficantly limit my choice of OS? When choosing an OS my considerations will be 1) Make sure it can do everything I need it to do. 2) Ease of administration. From what I've read, FreeNAS is easy to administer. But I don't know it's limitations and whether or not a different OS would be a better choice given my needs.
• 4GB of RAM is not a problem for me. Just adds some cost I assume.

2) Backup
This is my very personal opinion and how I handle my backups. I use external 3.5" HDDs of varying sizes to accommodate data from the NAS as a backup. So for instance I have a 2TB WD Drive for backing up my movies, a 320GB WD for my documents and so on. On my main computer I have a free software installed (Z-DBackup) with different jobs setup. Whenever I plug in any of the HDDs I choose the corresponding incremental backup job and away I go. Like this it doesn't really matter what you have on your NAS (data, other backups, the OS itself and what have you) as long as you correctly setup your backup jobs.
As far as I am concerned this is safe enough for me, as long as these external HDDs are safely stored away. For vital data of any sort I make at least one copy - rather two - to CD/DVD (which I would renew every 5 years or so) or another HDD.

Makes sense. I may look into cloud backup for critical items (that I would not want to loose in-between backups). Backup with external hard drives for the rest. Only problem with backing up to external hard drives is taking the time / remembering to do this.

Re: backing up NAS to hard drives (external):
Instead of backing up to external hard drives, could this also be done via backing up to hot swap drives? I know next to nothing re: hot swap drives as I have not had a need for this up until now. Only advantage I can think of (if it is an advantage) - Are external hard drives more expensive than standard drives you would use for hot swapping?

Thanks again for your comments. They are much appreciated.

 

[zambalek80]

Well, let's go through that stuff one by one, shall we? Maybe you want to get a coffee or something, I reckon it's going to be a long haul

I understand hardware is better for speed. In my application, how advantageous is the speed difference?

Grosso modo I'd say you'll get more speed with hardware in two kinds of scenarios; when frequently handling tons of small files (ergo ZFS is better with large files, i.e. movies, series, software and the like) or when heavily accessing files (as is the case with a server-like usage).
As such you should be better off with a hardware solution. Although that depends of course on the amount of time spent on the different tasks.

"Easy to administer". So, setup / maintenance of ZFS not signficantly more difficult than hardware RAID?

Not in my opinion, yes.

I understand ZFS being faster when reconstructing a damaged RAID. However, this is probably more important for a business who needs to be back up fast. When I have to restore the RAID, my main issues would be 1) making sure no data is lost & 2) ease of reconstruction (combination of software difficulty and amount of time I have to spend). I can however live with decreased dowtime of NAS and increased "computer time" in reconstruction. Hope I'm making sense here. How does ZFS compare to hardware RAID in this regard?

Fortunately I haven't been in a situation where I had to do a RAID-reconstruction ... yet. To my knowledge ZFS is solid enough for you not to worry about data loss. Primary risk for that to happen is generally a power outage or some other sort of mishap - which of course is more or less independent of the type of RAID implementation. ZFS uses checksums for every block of data and as such can even automatically correct errors introduced during file transfer.

"Last but not least ZFS works on the basis of "copy-on-write" - which allows for very handy and easy snapshot management." - You've lost me here. What do you mean by "snapshot management"?

Snapshots are taken in a breeze, because it simply freezes the current state of data as soon as you take a snapshot. After that new or altered data merely represents the change since the last snapshot. Further you can mount snapshots to read them, archive them or make them clones (which basically are writable snapshots) - advanced stuff which I honestly haven't dug into.

ZFS requiring 64-Bit OS - What are the ramifications of this? Increased hardware cost I assume? Does this signficantly limit my choice of OS? When choosing an OS my considerations will be 1) Make sure it can do everything I need it to do. 2) Ease of administration. From what I've read, FreeNAS is easy to administer. But I don't know it's limitations and whether or not a different OS would be a better choice given my needs.

Not necessarily; Linux is free, 64bit processors are standard nowadays and you can find lots of powerful and cheap ones. The main limitation of FreeNAS is it's a slimmed-down Linux and as such you're dependant on the community to develop plugins and the like to satisfy your needs, which may not be satisfied with the standard installation of FreeNAS. Nonetheless I think it's a great NAS-OS. As for myself I am considering Ubuntu Server as OS because it's a full fledged system with the according flexibilty and power. Downside being it takes time and a considerable amount of knowledge to do ... the latter of which I am far from claiming for myself.

Makes sense. I may look into cloud backup for critical items (that I would not want to loose in-between backups). Backup with external hard drives for the rest. Only problem with backing up to external hard drives is taking the time / remembering to do this.
Re: backing up NAS to hard drives (external):
Instead of backing up to external hard drives, could this also be done via backing up to hot swap drives? I know next to nothing re: hot swap drives as I have not had a need for this up until now. Only advantage I can think of (if it is an advantage) - Are external hard drives more expensive than standard drives you would use for hot swapping?

Well you're right. It takes a certain amount of discipline to do the backups - and I must admit sometimes I have to push myself to do it. But it suits me fine. As far as I am concerned, I don't like cloud. So I am stuck with that method
Of course external drives in most cases are a tad more expensive, since you pay for the enclosure and a tiny bit of interface hardware - or a lot if you have a full-fledged external HDD aimed at daily use like the WD Elements. But you don't buy them like candy, now do you? They live forever (figuratively speaking) and with nowadays' capacities you don't run into storage problems too quickly.

Well, there we go. Your coffee cold now

 

[GregN]

Greg - Thank you very much for your reply. Your input is much appreciated.



Makes sense. In regards to overall build:

• Response time - Important. Willing to live with a little lag if it improves energy effeciency signficantly. Glad to know this is customizable. Can WOL be configured based upon type of media? For example - play music often -> want very little lag. Video will primarily be for kids -> they can wait a few seconds to improve energy effeciency.
• Energy effeciency - Important. Willing to pay more up front to make greener.
• Cost - Need to be conscious of pricing, but not #1 priority.
• Noise - Not important. Will be located in equipment closet.

WOL is Wake On Lan, it means the machine wakes up whenever net traffic is addressed to it. Any traffic. No way to discriminate, if you use a newer RAID card you can get staggered spin up, which pulls less power, and energy settings for your drives - that might allow some savings. Be careful about green drives, in particular Western Digital drives, they have been known to have capability problems. ZFS seems to like them even less.

I'll show my ignorance here. We had a local home automation company design / install our system with my input / needs in mind. Our current setup includes:

AT&T U-verse with "2-Wire" Modem / Gateway
Cat5e wiring throughout house. Co-ax, Cat5E, & Fiber to TV's
Cisco SF 102-24 24 Port 10/100 switch (unmanaged)
Cisco RVS4000 v2 Router

I can access both the AT&T gateway and Cisco router, but don't know where / how to verify traffic.

One of the first things you might look at is a gigabit (1000 ) backbone, it looks like you are at Fast internet speeds ( 100 ), not gigabit. A gigabit 24 port managed switch, used, off of eBay can be had for less than a 100 bucks. And it will handle everything you've got now. The router is gigabit, so the switch is really the limiter.

You may not have the gigabit NICs in machines, and I don't know about your media player. But making the NAS gigabit and replacing the switch would offer a good speed bump.

• Can you start small and grow with hardware RAID?
• How much difference in cost between the two (approximate)?
• Given my usage, how beneficial is increased peformance of hardware RAID?
• What about difficulty of setup between hardware RAID & ZFS? I recently read a forum posting somewhere (unsure of location & date of posting) commening that ZFS was more difficult to setup. This post also indicated that ZFS was more difficult to find support / help when things go wrong. Any truth to this?
• Would prefer to not run both. Prefer to avoid RAID migration.

Raid has good performance, but is a pain to migrate. ZFS and Raid-Z is more flexible, but doesn't offer the performance, it is a trade off.

There is a bit of a level crossing here, RAID just worries about blocks and disks - it doesn't care what the filesystem is, where things are, what a file is. For that you need a filesystem. If you go straight disks or raid controller, both need a filesystem which sits on top of it/them. So you can run ZFS on top of a raid controller no problem, even recommended by some folks.

Using a RAID controller you define a volume, generally 3 or more disks, and then define a raid level. It manages the storage of bits across the disks so it is fast and reliable, recoverable if a disk dies. ( RAID controllers can also do JBOD, just a bunch of drives and present each disk separately. )

If you want to add more you have two choices, you can migrate the whole thing to another larger set of disks, or you can just define another volume and combine them at the filesystem level - something ZFS makes easy. It isn't either/or.

I need some type of backup (in addition to local PC's & NAS). My main concern would be lightning which could destroy both PC's and NAS. External HD backup would solve this. Only problem is that this is not automatic. This may however be the best option.

I currently use Dropbox.com to back up my important documents. However, this will no longer work with NAS due to size. I could still use Dropbox for important files & potentially music; however, I would have to find an alternative backup method for other larger volume important items (primarily home video of kids).

I will have to research cloud backup. I assume dropbox is a form for this. I also assume that cloud backup for the ENTIRE NAS would be cost prohibitive (and probably unnecessary)?

Don't know cost, I do know speed, it can take if you are lucky (good up bandwidth from your ISP), two hours to move one gigabyte of data over a WAN connection. That means a single terabyte will take two thousand hours. If your NAS is 10TB (5 2TB drives ), that is twenty thousand hours if your NAS is full. And if something during that time goes wrong, it can be a major pain to determine where it failed, and start it up again. Differential backups and Compression can help, but storing all of a NAS in the cloud just ain't practical. A raw unconverted dvdrip is between 4 and 8 gig, you do just one, and that is at least eight hours of transferring data.

Am I correct in assuming the main role of Rsync would be to sync items between home computers and NAS (both on LAN)?

Easy to say that is the vast majority of cases.

I use the same backup method as zambalek80, hard disks containing duplicates of my important data, and that storage isn't online...

Hope that helps

 

[cpotter638]

One of the first things you might look at is a gigabit (1000 ) backbone, it looks like you are at Fast internet speeds ( 100 ), not gigabit. A gigabit 24 port managed switch, used, off of eBay can be had for less than a 100 bucks. And it will handle everything you've got now. The router is gigabit, so the switch is really the limiter.

You may not have the gigabit NICs in machines, and I don't know about your media player. But making the NAS gigabit and replacing the switch would offer a good speed bump.

Control 4 Processor = "10/100/1000 BaseT Ethernet"
Dune media player = Gigabit

Switch should have been gigabit. Mistake by home automation installer. I will get this changed. If I had to guess, they will want to put in an unmanaged gigabit switch. Is this acceptible? Given a residential application, what are the real advantages of managed vs. unmanaged gigabit switch?

Main laptop is "fast", not gigabit. Will have to check other machines. But we would be gigabit going forward.

 

[Generic George]

Switch should have been gigabit. Mistake by home automation installer. I will get this changed. If I had to guess, they will want to put in an unmanaged gigabit switch. Is this acceptible? Given a residential application, what are the real advantages of managed vs. unmanaged gigabit switch?

Managed switches are really only necessary for things like Link aggregation. Which is bonding multiple ethernet ports together to enable greater throughput, the catch is that 2 x gigabit ethernet ports does not get you 2 gigabit ethernet, but the ability to handle 2 gigabits worth of data at the device. In other words if you had 2 machines hooked up to something with a pair of aggregated gigabit ethernet ports, you could get a full 1 gigabit worth of data to each machine (all other factors permitting), but if you only had 1 machine you would still only get 1 gigabit even if you had a pair of aggregated ports on that machine as well.

There are some other features of managed switches, like the ability to segment your network into multiple virtual LANs, but those are essentially irrelevant to anyone not running a business network.

 

[GregN]

George is right here. No compelling need for a managed switch, especially when you don't know your traffic needs.

The thing is, that a used gigabit 24 port managed switch used sells for about the same (if not less) as a new unmanaged 24-port switch.

Aggregation, QOS, and VLAN support provided by a managed switch give you some place to go with your switch, and it can also allow you to better monitor traffic on your network. A unmanaged switch has no future, if you ever want any of the above features, you'll be mothballing the old switch.

If you aggregate the traffic from your NAS, it doesn't allow more than 1 Gig to any client. But in terms of concurrent access it does allow the NAS to serve over 1Gig of data to the network. Movies, TV, Music to all destinations is less fettered.

 

[GregN]

Unless things have changed, FreeBSD ZFS setup and admin are done at the command line without a GUI, most higher end RAID controllers give you a webgui, a command line, and a bios gui to work with.

So if you definition of more complex includes working at the command line, then ZFS is more complex, but often worth it.

There is another option which folks like, but muddies the water a bit. ZFS is originally from Sun, a version of their open source OS is available for free, Nexenta CE, and a ZFS free GUI tool call Napp-it has been built on top of that.

I would go ahead and review the costs of some of the better RAID controllers, ARECA, LSI/3Ware, Adaptec. Add see if this is the kind of money you want to spend for your first build (check EBay too)

The easiest initial approach would be to get a green mother board ( Sandy Bridge Celeron? ) with 6 SATA ports ( five 2/3TB drives, and a SSD as a system drive) and build your NAS using that. This would be either software raid or ZFS (and RAID-Z1/2). This would not require special hardware or configuration, it is really straight forward. Migrating would be a bit of a sting (you'd need to buy more disks and a raid controller), but you would have a complete picture of your trade-offs.

I recently built a SAN (sort of an uber-RAID box ), and went hardware RAID. If I had to do it again, I might very well go the Nexenta or FreeBSD route with a SAS/SATA controller instead, the cost would be less and more flexible ( I am not the biggest fan of OpenFiler, the turnkey distro that competes with FreeNAS ).

I do think that the future does look very ZFS.

 

[cpotter638]

Trying to digest all of the provided info. Thanks for all the help. A few questions and comments re: previous posts:

Re: Switch:

• I will swap out for a gigabit switch. Sounds like managed is preferable. But un-managed is however acceptible. Managed vs. unmanaged may be out of my control as stereo installer will have to swap and will probably only provide new equipment. As such, they probably won't swap out for a NEW managed switch.

zambalek80 had a comment re: data loss & power outage:

• I understand data loss can occur with lightening, power mishaps, etc. What about just a standard power outage or unplugging? Will RAID typically be OK? Just turn back on and reboot? I will have surge protection. But is battery backup of NAS also recommended?

Taking into accout all comments and additional outside research, I'm favoring ZFS over hardware RAID. Questions and comments re: ZFS:

• I read a post on another site. General comment was "If you don't know linux, don't even attempt to program / set-up ZFS".
  1. I certainly do not know Linux. Although it's been a LONG time, I've programmed in C++. Have done a VERY SMALL amount of visual basic programming. Never minded playing at the command line in VERY OLD "DOS". I'm willing to program at the command line (if necessary). I'm willing to research / learn basic programming for whatever OS I end up using. As such, is ZFS file-system very difficult to learn (as implyied by above mentioned forum post at another site)?
  
  
• Options for ZFS OS?

1. There is a pretty good discussion re: available options here:
   http://frankleng.me/2010/05/01/zfs-...ive-to-drobo-droboshare-the-complete-guide/2/
2. Given options, I'm favoring FreeNAS (possibly version 0.8.X). This apparently has ZFS support and a web-based GUI. Above link references installation using FreeNAS 0.7.X. Anyone here installed ZFS in FreeNAS 0.8.x? Any better alternative OS for ZFS with web-based GUI?

Thanks again for all the help.

 

[GregN]

Trying to digest all of the provided info. Thanks for all the help. A few questions and comments re: previous posts:

Re: Switch:

• I will swap out for a gigabit switch. Sounds like managed is preferable. But un-managed is however acceptible. Managed vs. unmanaged may be out of my control as stereo installer will have to swap and will probably only provide new equipment. As such, they probably won't swap out for a NEW managed switch.

The price difference between New managed and New unmanaged is significant, be forewarned. Why have the installer do it, support reasons?

zambalek80 had a comment re: data loss & power outage:

• I understand data loss can occur with lightening, power mishaps, etc. What about just a standard power outage or unplugging? Will RAID typically be OK? Just turn back on and reboot? I will have surge protection. But is battery backup of NAS also recommended?

There are a couple issues here, and again it depends on your configuration. A NAS under standard conditions, without a UPS, will handle power outages just as well as a normal PC. Which means that a UPS is always recommended, but not required. Power outages for a NAS can require a long start-up cycle, while things are checked.

This is where configuration comes into play. Hardware RAID Cards often have their own Battery Backup Unit (looks sorta like three double A batteries in shinkwrap), and is needed if you set your write policy to "Write Thru" instead of "Write Back". To paraphrase, Write Thru, essentially says Write to the cache is the same as writing to the disk; Write Back says Write to the Disk and the cache. In a Write Thru scenario there is data that is in the Cache but not on disk, power fails, the operating system thinks it the write succeeded when it didn't. A BBU solves this by insuring the cache is flushed to the disk. As you can imagine, writing to cache (Write Thru) has significant performance advantages.

The policy is your choice, if you have a UPS the BBU is redundant.

Taking into account all comments and additional outside research, I'm favoring ZFS over hardware RAID. Questions and comments re: ZFS:

(again it doesn't have to be either or)

• I read a post on another site. General comment was "If you don't know linux, don't even attempt to program / set-up ZFS".
  1. I certainly do not know Linux. Although it's been a LONG time, I've programmed in C++. Have done a VERY SMALL amount of visual basic programming. Never minded playing at the command line in VERY OLD "DOS". I'm willing to program at the command line (if necessary). I'm willing to research / learn basic programming for whatever OS I end up using. As such, is ZFS file-system very difficult to learn (as implied by above mentioned forum post at another site)?
     
     The web is wonderful, you will find cookbooks that will step you thru the work you'll need to do, line by line. First do this, than do that, the results will look like this. With ZFS, this is the case, if you can run through such a script, than no problem. The exception of course is when the results don't look like "this", then you'll have to troubleshoot, requiring a deeper understanding.
     
     A simple example of this deeper understanding is that FreeNAS is based on BSD, not Linux. The difference is like the difference between say Austrian German language, and proper German. Often the differences are subtle, but sometimes stark (for example the name of fruits and vegetables, or system configuration files and procedures).
     
  
  
• Options for ZFS OS?

1. There is a pretty good discussion re: available options here:
   http://frankleng.me/2010/05/01/zfs-...ive-to-drobo-droboshare-the-complete-guide/2/
2. Given options, I'm favoring FreeNAS (possibly version 0.8.X). This apparently has ZFS support and a web-based GUI. Above link references installation using FreeNAS 0.7.X. Anyone here installed ZFS in FreeNAS 0.8.x? Any better alternative OS for ZFS with web-based GUI?

Thanks again for all the help.

Thank you for the link, things have progressed nicely. A note, they recently increase the NexentaStor to 18TB.

The video for FreeNAS 0.7 Set-up implies that the WebGui can handle all ZFS operations, I was under the impression that this wasn't the case (some command line was required). Can Roush or someone clarify this?

I have heard rumblings that FreeNAS 0.8 has issues ( performance & minor stability? ), again anyone want to address that?

All of that aside, ZFS is like I said, I think the future, and a good choice with some compromise.

 

[zambalek80]

I'll be limiting myself to answering the ZFS & FreeNAS 8 question.
I have FreeNAS 8 running as a virtual machine (VM) in VMWare Workstation 8 and use ZFS.
This really is uber-easy to setup - no command line, straight forward GUI and I haven't had any issues so far! It has been a breeze for me; was up and running productively in 15 minutes.
As I have mentioned in my thread about the new NAS build I am currently working on (see my first post in this thread) I am switching to a standalone NAS because I have issues with stability that are attributed not to ZFS but to the software environment. Because I am using physical disks in the VM and not virtual ones. Since with the 950GB limit for virtual disks it's a real shame wasting five 1.5TB drives for that, now isn't it. And using physical drives in a VM is always very delicate to handle!

So in short: I am confident using FreeNAS 8 with ZFS is the best solution for a standalone NAS for anyone not into command line and deep digging setup.
Everyone else looking for a powerful and free software setup I reckon Ubuntu Server with ZFS should do the trick (with one caveat: programming and setup).

 

[cpotter638]

The price difference between New managed and New unmanaged is significant, be forewarned. Why have the installer do it, support reasons?

Switch is included with my contract with them. I may be able to get the switch taken out (and handle myself), but don't know for sure.

Power outages for a NAS can require a long start-up cycle, while things are checked.

How long? Minutes? Hours?

Taking into account all comments and additional outside research, I'm favoring ZFS over hardware RAID. Questions and comments re: ZFS:

(again it doesn't have to be either or)

If I go with BOTH the hardware RAID & ZFS:

• Advantage? I assume increased performance?
• Disadvantages?

1. 
   
   [*]Cost of card (just ballpark, looks to be $200-300?)
   [*]What about setup? How much more difficult? Can still use FreeNAS?​

The web is wonderful, you will find cookbooks that will step you thru the work you'll need to do, line by line. First do this, than do that, the results will look like this. With ZFS, this is the case, if you can run through such a script, than no problem. The exception of course is when the results don't look like "this", then you'll have to troubleshoot, requiring a deeper understanding.

I can certainly deal with a cookbook approach. Have not found such approach on the web yet. If you know of any links, can you forward to me?

The video for FreeNAS 0.7 Set-up implies that the WebGui can handle all ZFS operations, I was under the impression that this wasn't the case (some command line was required). Can Roush or someone clarify this?

Shouldn't be an issue if I can do the majority with web GUI but have to do some at the command line (especially if I can find a relatively detialed "cookbook" or get some help here when I'm stuck).

I have heard rumblings that FreeNAS 0.8 has issues ( performance & minor stability? ), again anyone want to address that?

I've seen a few scattered comments re: instability of FreeNAS 0.8. I have some questions re: FreeNas (some of which pertain to 0.7 vs. 0.8):

• From what I've read, 0.8 has ZFS advantages over 0.7. Most notably (to me anyway) is ability to ADD drives to raid array with 0.8. Apparently this cannot be done with 0.7.
• So - my main question at this point -> Is ZFS with FreeNAS 0.8 currently stable? zambalek80 has provided positive feedback with recent post, but this was with a virtual machine. Can anyone provide feedback with FreeNAS 0.8 in a standalone NAS? zambalek80 - will you be using FreeNAS 0.8 or Ubuntu with your new standalone?
• I have more questions re: ZFS and how many drives to start with, potential ability to add drives to the raid array, and procedure for swapping to bigger drives down the road. However, these questions are probably better addressed once I decide FreeNAS 0.7 vs. 0.8 (as answers are probably dependent on version of FreeNAS)

I have FreeNAS 8 running as a virtual machine (VM) in VMWare Workstation 8 and use ZFS.
This really is uber-easy to setup - no command line, straight forward GUI and I haven't had any issues so far! It has been a breeze for me; was up and running productively in 15 minutes.

Sounds awesome! My wife is already dreading my "new project" and its required time to implement.

So in short: I am confident using FreeNAS 8 with ZFS is the best solution for a standalone NAS for anyone not into command line and deep digging setup.

zambalek80 - No reservations on your part (specifically pertaining to stablity)that would make you want to use 0.7 instead of 0.8?

 

[GregN]

Switch is included with my contract with them. I may be able to get the switch taken out (and handle myself), but don't know for sure.

Based price from a unmanaged 24-port Gigabit switch at NewEgg is $100 to $300, the price for a Managed one range from $300 to $1500. Try to make sure you are in on the purchase decision....

How long? Minutes? Hours?

It depends. What the machine was doing when it went down, how many disks you have, and alike. ZFS does not require time consuming filesystem checks (fsck), which helps. A power crash on my SAN (no fsck) takes less than 20 minutes, a cold boot about 5 minutes.

ZFS does do filesystem cleans and repair to recover from a crash, it just does them in the background once you've rebooted, which as you'd expect degrades performance. How long the clean up takes is dependent on how big a mess it was, did you have three clients in the middle of writing, or was it all read operations.

If I go with BOTH the hardware RAID & ZFS

I was wrong on this. I went off to research this topic, and found that it is actually strongly recommended that you run ZFS strictly on a SATA or SATA/SAS Host bus adapter ( this includes SATA ports on your Motherboard). Apologize for the confusion.

ZFS Cookbooks...

Google is your friend. The results contain You Tube results. This is a very popular subject, and finding help here or elsewhere shouldn't be a problem. Some folks here may have favorites....


My recommendation on a starter system would be:

A Sandy Bridge motherboard, which allows processor upgrade in the future. Motherboard should support (Supermicro, Asus, Gigabyte make one):

At least 32 Gig of memory.
At least six, preferably SATA III (6Gig) ports.
USB 3
Two Gigabit Intel NICs

A Sandy Bridge Celeron or i3 processor

As much memory as you can go, starting at 8gig (memory is performance)

A 32gig SSD system drive

5 non-green consumer grade 2TB HDD (Hitachi or Samsung both good, make sure there is no block size emulation)


The nice thing about this configuration is that it does not lock you in to any particular limitations. The processor can be upgraded, memory upgraded, you can move to 3TB disks or to increase the number of disks by adding a SATA HBA.

Storage initially would be 8-10TB (ZFS or RAID-Z). If you add up all the storage you have now, throughout the house, does it fit in less than 8TB? If it doesn't start, with 3TB disks.

I am a big fan of the slightly more expensive SuperMicro MBs.

WAF Factor...

As a comic aside, have you see the product reviews for this, absolutely hilarious.

Hope that helps.

 

[cpotter638]

Be careful about green drives, in particular Western Digital drives, they have been known to have capability problems. ZFS seems to like them even less.

I have been looking online today. Cannot find info re: compatibility problems between "green" hard drives and ZFS. Anyone know of associated links?

Looking to by hard drives ASAP given prices are going nowhere but up (secondary to flooding in Thailand). Looking at purchasing 6X 2.0TB drives. Thinking of using Raidz2 setup.

Questions:

• Can anyone confirm compatibility issues with green drives and FreeNas with ZFS setup? As such, should I avoid green drives?
• Any other drives that I should avoid?
• Any recommended drives?
• Sata 3.0Gb/s or 6.0Gb/s? Or doesn't matter?

Thanks again for all the help.

 

[cpotter638]

5 non-green consumer grade 2TB HDD (Hitachi or Samsung both good, make sure there is no block size emulation)

Hard drive prices have increased considerably. Perhaps I can get a reasonable price with Cyber Monday. Today, I could have gotten the below drive for $89. However, Newegg reviews were sub-par:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822145475

How do I verify / deny "block size emulation"? Don't know what this is or how to look for it prior to purchasing.

 

[GregN]

I have been looking online today. Cannot find info re: compatibility problems between "green" hard drives and ZFS. Anyone know of associated links?

Looking to by hard drives ASAP given prices are going nowhere but up (secondary to flooding in Thailand). Looking at purchasing 6X 2.0TB drives. Thinking of using Raidz2 setup.

Questions:

• Can anyone confirm compatibility issues with green drives and FreeNas with ZFS setup? As such, should I avoid green drives?
• Any other drives that I should avoid?
• Any recommended drives?
• Sata 3.0Gb/s or 6.0Gb/s? Or doesn't matter?

Thanks again for all the help.

The largest problem as I mentioned is with 512 Emulation (also known as 4K drives) on ZFS , and the Western Digital Drives, stick with true 512b blocks . Here is a thread from FreeBSD.com that echo the recommendation against Green or 4K drives.

A very good resource, and aggregater is ZFSBuild.com

As mentioned about, Hitachi and Samsung are both solid choices, there have been reports of Seagate drives having manufacturing problem (which I think has been resolved).

SATA III (6G) is the future....

Hope that helps

 

[GregN]

Confusing construct on my part, neither the Hitachis or Samsungs are 512e drives.