Mass storage thread / RAID / NAS / Home server

I don't want to support freenas and a custom build for him. For $210 a prebuilt 4 bay nas is pretty decent. Plug it and play it. He's better with music than building computers.

WD - Just say no. (Had 'em and got rid of 'em)

what's wrong with WD?

Don't do RAID 5

Depends on batch but can be shit lifespan. HGST are the go to for quality these days.

what's wrong with RAID 5?

Nothing. Stop falling for memes. Eventually backblaze will release a chart showing HGST failing more than the others just out of sheer coincidence and then these idiots won't buy any hard drives and we can finally be rid of them.

With modern disk sizes and expected unrecoverable read error (URE) rates on consumer disks, the rebuild of a 4TiB array is expected (i.e. higher than 50% chance) to have at least one URE. Because of this, RAID 5 is no longer advised by the storage industry.

Tl;dr not enough redundancy for modern mega-huge drives.

What's the alternative?

Consider ZFS

Raid 6 is still fine, so is raid 10. Generally I'd just choose between the two. 6 is more cost effective, 10 is better overall.

so raid 6 cuts the size down to 20tb right, but it can survive two simultaneous drive failures?

use zfs. take 2 drives, set them up as mirrors, then put the mirror sets in a stripe.

I use RAID-Z2 with 6x10 TB disks for usable 40 TB. Definitely wouldn't only have one redundant disk when it's going to take days to rebuild a degraded array.

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. How do I spec that out?

daily reminder that actual raid is not for backup
use a proper backup solution like snapraid+mergerfs nightly/weekly sync instead

Attached: 1520261991266.jpg (600x800, 318K)

wait though. shouldn't backups be raided, too?
Can't we raid both the original and the backup for even more backup goodness?

no
every time you need to access files, all your raided drives spin up, all drives are written to and read from, instead of just the one the files are on (and your parity drive(s) whenever syncing)
of course you make compromises either way, but for pure backup where regular read/write speads of hdd:s are well above what you actually need, raid is only a liability

>raid is only a liability
Surely you must be joking. Having parity can't be a bad thing.

no, but there are much better ways to achieve parity for backup than using raid
snapraid for example
unraid is another example, but snapraid is foss and is generally better

>I'm thinking RAID 5
I can see no situation where RAID 5 or RAID 6 wont end with a failed array for drives that big. RAID 6 only exists because RAID 5 ate arrays of 1TB disks during rebuilds, and the solution RAID 6 provided was just to allow for that URE. You're talking about disks ten times that size. Even if they don't fail, the rebuild time will be measured in days. Use RAID 1, or some logical abstraction on it like md RAID 10f2 or ZFS.

ebay.com/itm/Synology-DiskStation-DS2415-with-12-x-4TB-WD-Hard-Drives-16GB-ram-upgrade/192827103500?hash=item2ce564190c:g:HQ8AAOSwhW1cYwV8:rk:31:pf:0
Is that a good deal used?

>40% better than the refurb version of the drive
Your own source said that there no guarantee that the drive in the external is a rebrand of that. You don't know. WD wouldn't give away a high quality drive for cheap just cause.

Harddrives fail often and youre likely to have one fail in the 3-5 year warranty period you get of better drives.

Got pissed off the day that an update removed NFS supoport from the devices (I just run linux machines). They are slow and unreliable, network bonding doesn't work well at all. No memes here, just the facts, ma'am...

I'm talking their NAS. Not the drives - I use their Reds in Synology devicews.

desu every drive can fail at any time, it's all within 1% per year.
Good backups and decent raid with at least 2 hot spares is what you should be spending your money on. Not banking on the manufacturer.

get 12TB drives

are they gonna come down in price later this year?

Totally 100% fine. See Jow Forumsdatahoarders for a compendium of information about shucking Easystores. Hundreds of them have been shucked, with little to no downsides reported. I've personally got 9 shucked drives in my homelab. 5 are 8TB's from 2017 Black Friday, and 4 are 10TBs from 2018 Black Friday. All are running perfectly.

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-02-16 at 10.33.29 AM.png (1142x786, 320K)

The shucked drives will be great, don't listen to naysayers. They are most likely jealous europoors or Canadians who don't have access to our sweet sweet Easystores. I'd personally go with ECC ram for ZFS for highest redundancy. ZFS is the most based filesystem, as it provides checksums, snapshotting, and redundancy all in one. ECC ram is best for it, though you can risk it without. ECC ram means buying used enterprise gear, which as long as you do a bit of research, has zero downsides. Also, backup will be key - I personally recommend crashplan. $10/mo and its completely unlimited.

Attached: Based and NASpilled3.png (892x929, 216K)

That's sequential, not random access.
Random access is where most NAS devices really go to shit, because:
1. They typically use hard drives, not SSDs, and often have limited RAM for use as cache.
2. Network and software stack latency
Pic related is my home/server NAS. It's been tuned pretty well, though I think I'm just running into CPU bottlenecks with Samba at this point.

Attached: nas benchmark.png (406x368, 43K)

What’s the cheapest raidz2 set up for a poorfag?

>I personally recommend crashplan
Do I have to use their proprietary software to upload backups or can I encrypt them myself? I don't want those dumb faggots snooping around my anime and meme collections

Probably it is just not doing RAIDZ2 but RAID6 or even RAID5 to avoid the higher hardware cost.

At which point you can do it rather easily with some J1900 - J5005 or such onboard x86_64 and maybe 512MB-1GB RAM

Don't raid 5

Raid5 is a fairly reasonable compromise for something like your backup storage.

One drive in the array can fail without you loosing data, and the chance that another drive will fail if you replace it quickly isn't that terribly high.

More redundancy is better, but if you're a poorfag maybe you're reluctant to buy another drive to get 2 drives of redundancy.

Nah dude. See:

The desktop in my living room just has several hdds but i want to turn an old tower into a NAS. The problem is i dont want to spend a bunch of money on a lot of hdds but i dont really want to do it until im going to do it right (lots of storage, would prefer raid redundancy)

Spend money.

>he didn't build his NAS on a platform with stupidly cheap ram
my dual 1366 system has 48gb and it was only $100

I just dont want to. I want like 10+TB of storage so if i want redundancy ill need more than that and i dont feel like spending that much money on drives right now. I also dont know at all how to get it setup and havent felt like spending that time

But I did, it's a single 1366 with 48GB and a few SSDs as cache.

If you want 10TB of storage, you probably want to keep the data you put in it. For that, you need to spend money.

6 x 12tb drives in raid6

Attached: 4F0268A9-5BA6-4B98-8ADF-6361C9D3EEEE.jpg (1196x1393, 281K)

4 x 12tb raid5

Attached: ED8A59F3-9F44-485F-8CEE-335D1C94C966.jpg (1219x1394, 273K)

>For that, you need to spend money
Do i need 2x the storage or are there RAID settings i can use to just have say 1 extra drive? Do i need any RAID hardware or can it all be done in software? I have no experience using any kind of RAID

RAID6 allows you to use just 2 extra drives, for a minimum investment of 4 drives
Although if it's just 4 drives you might as well raid 10. You're looking at buying a lot of hard drives regardless.

Nice
how does ssd caching work with zfs?

I've been wanting to expand my server with a DAS enclosure but the nice 12 bay rackmount ones are stupidly expensive
amazon.com/dp/B00LSQOY6G/
I've been eyeing this lenovo one for a while but for the price it seems to good to be true

>only 16 review
>pic related

Attached: Screenshot_20190216_142711.png (708x226, 38K)

>how does ssd caching work with zfs?
It just works

You can do read caching (L2ARC) or write caching (ZIL), but write caching is less safe in case of power loss. For read caching, it caches both frequently used and recently used.

Attached: file.png (805x315, 8K)

Is there a better option for $450?

Ah nice, i probably wouldn't benefit from it until i get 10gbit networking

RAID is not a backup, I repeat, RAID is not a backup.

>Ah nice, i probably wouldn't benefit from it until i get 10gbit networking
I wouldn't be so sure. Your sequential speeds will be heavily bottlenecked by 1GbE, but random access will still benefit a lot from an SSD.

>Is there a better option for $450?
I've been seriously considering a DIY enclosure. Take some server chassis with a bunch of drive bays and a backplane, and just run the whole thing with no mobo in it. Toss a SAS expander in it if the backplane doesn't already have one.

what software do i need? Computer is an i5 3570k, amd 7970, 16GB ddr3

this is your best bang for the buck, they are quiet and idle at under 200 watts.

ebay.com/itm/Dell-PowerEdge-R510-2x-Xeon-L5640-2-26ghz-Hex-Core-32gb-H200-2x-PSU/233064427932?epid=513019832&hash=item3643b8f19c:g:OSUAAOSwVtZaC3JG:rk:13:pf:0

>I wouldn't be so sure. Your sequential speeds will be heavily bottlenecked by 1GbE, but random access will still benefit a lot from an SSD.
my nas doesn't do a lot of sequential access, but in the future i'll be using it as primary storage for my other computers with iscsi or something
>I've been seriously considering a DIY enclosure. Take some server chassis with a bunch of drive bays and a backplane, and just run the whole thing with no mobo in it. Toss a SAS expander in it if the backplane doesn't already have one.
that'd be the easiest honestly

He wants to keep backups on his RAID you fucking autist

RAID1 sort of is :^)

Yeah if we unplug one of the drives and let it sync every now and then I guess it is

Attached: 1546569986867.jpg (400x400, 27K)

Linux/mdadm works just fine

How much money for a cheap setup

I mean how much money would I need it t I mean for a raidz2 set up

>Recommending mdadm
>ever
>not snapraid
How come no one ever recommends snapraid

Because no-one uses it

Modern NASes allow you to use the system while the Raid5 is rebuilding.

Anyone else using tapes to backup their NAS server? you know for long term offsite backup storage

What tape drive do you guys use?

Attached: ggfffffff.png (1110x933, 280K)

What do you mean?

a single raid should not be the only instance of your data, even if there's parity and/or striping.

Why would someone, who only runs linux machines, buy a NAS pre-loaded with the manufacturer's proprietary garbage instead of building their own and installing linux?

Wait are Synology and Qnap not reputable?

Use bluray discs.

based

Why?

Good price, decent size, easy to use, easy to store

I do,

I will once my boss lets me take our old tape library. We've already had a new one in production for almost a year.

Easy to scratch the disc and lose data too

Stop using your discs as dinner plates. There's a hole in the middle!

If you can't easily install linux on them then they belong in the garbage.

>tfw my old 2TB drive is at 200% its expectancy life

SMART doesn't show anything weird, should I wait for its death any day? or it will show signs before doing it

I've actually heard about people RMAing shucked drives and not only having it honored but also getting another enclosure out of it

tl;dr

My advice is to make a thread about how you hate apple or love microsoft or whuddever
I got bored of this thread at about the part where it says " looking to help my musician friend keep "

Both DSM and QTS are Linux, dumbass.
Save time, money, less to learn, less maintenance, actually having a warranty and support.

>Both DSM and QTS are Linux, dumbass.
Being able to install the distro you want on them is not the same as having the manufacturer-provided shit running on them that just happens to have the same kernel, dumbass.
>Save time, less to learn
Setting my home server up when I bought it barely took any time, as I was already running linux on other computers, just like the poster I replied to. Granted, I did not set up raid, but it's probably something you can learn to do at the cost of investing a few hours, once.
>less maintenance
Running apt every now and then sure is hard.
>warranty
Most people don't live in Somalia so the computer parts they buy come with warranty.
>support (when search engines exist)
Lmao. Calling their free tech support to "put it back" when they arbitrarily decide to remove NFS is surely gonna work.

Bp

You're choosing the distro by buying these companies products in the first place. Why wouldn't you want to use a purposeful distro? Everything is easier from the hardware, to software, to troubleshooting, to setting up additional software. If you count running a server just throwing up NFS then you're clearly not making full use of the available technology. Enjoy having to RMA every single individual part.

Are you just too dumb to troubleshoot things yourself that you need to pay for Linux?

What’s wrong with Synoligy or Qnap?

Aren’t tapes expensive?

Nope, I just value my time.