Homebuilt NAS

[jamiesalter]

Currently have one of the first versions of the Terastation as a home NAS box, but i'm finding it increasingly sluggish to say the least. Thinking about upgrading it, but thought screw it why not just build a NAS and use the terastation as a scheduled back up.

Am sort of going into this blind as don't know much about server-like hardware. I want RAID for peace of mind, although I don't have any real solid reason for it. Will use video on the motherboard, but also a discrete RAID card. Haven't chosen any components yet...any ideas?

Currently looking at the RAID card as I figured that would be the best place to start. The Adaptec 5405 fits the bill fine, but is probably overkill. (will be using SATA - SAS too expensive )

The server/nas will be used as a music server/streaming 1080p films and just a central storage area for photos etc. Budget is probably around £500 without disks although haven't put too much thought to it yet...

Will prefer a small form factor motherboard, but doesn't matter too much. Have no idea about processors...is something like the Q6600 completely wrong for a NAS?

Cheers for any opinions.

[colmo]

Will prefer a small form factor motherboard, but doesn't matter too much. Have no idea about processors...is something like the Q6600 completely wrong for a NAS?

That depends on whether you're willing to pay the power bills...considering your needs for this machine, and the fact there are CPUs coming out with less than half the power requirements, it strikes me as an extraordinarily poor choice, unless you're actually going to play the 1080p videos on this machine (in which case you're talking about a HTPC, not a NAS); a cheaper low-power/energy-efficient processor and a ATI 3450 video card would still be a better choice.

My first thought was something Atom-based, like I spotted here:

http://forums.hexus.net/small-form-f...ml#post1426933

If you are only going to access it via the network, a lightweight OS like FreeNAS would suffice (check http://www.freenas.org/index.php?opt...users_hardware for hardware compatibility for network and RAID controllers); I know nothing of this particular OS, but it is the highest-ranked NAS-oriented OS in the Distrowatch rankings I could see. You could even run it off a USB pen-drive to separate it from your data.

The chief concern with the motherboard above is the limited connectivity of 2 SATA connectors (only sufficient for software RAID 1) and the 10/100 LAN port (a gigabit LAN card could be slotted into the PCI port, perhaps using a riser card). I stumbled across this RAID card here, which seems a little more in line with your needs than the Adaptec:
http://www.scan.co.uk/Products/Produ...oductID=225506

The cost of all these works out at under £100 or so before disks, which I think is a little more cost-effective than the full-blown server you were hinting at.

[mikerr]

Whenever people talk about energy efficient PCs, I wonder why they don't just use any old laptop...
which were designed to be low power in the first place

[FifthFreedom]

Whenever people talk about energy efficient PCs, I wonder why they don't just use any old laptop...
which were designed to be low power in the first place

Lol I thought along the same lines last year...

Wanted a new NAS to fit in a small cupboard downstairs, so I bought a Laptop on eBay for £50, powerful spec with a broken screen.

I just cut the screen off (carefully to avoid damaging any parts I wanted...) and slotted it into the cupboard with a bad ass fan and an external RAID contorller.

Works perfect and cost £50 + drives + RAID controller

Not bad really.

[colmo]

I just cut the screen off (carefully to avoid damaging any parts I wanted...) and slotted it into the cupboard with a bad ass fan and an external RAID contorller.

Works perfect and cost £50 + drives + RAID controller

I'm interested in the RAID controller you used - I don't know of any that would work with a laptop, unless it was software RAID.

[sjbuck]

Beat me to it! Excellent suggestion to use a laptop. As has been said, the Q6600 is way overpowered for what you are needing.
From your requirements list it looks like a normal NAS should be able to provide the goods. My synology 207+ can easily do what you need, by far the most stressful thing is streaming 1080 video, but even that shouldn't break it out into a sweat. THe main advantage of the synology is the 18/40w power usage 'v' 100+ of a standard machine. I'd assess what you really want from it, if it's a project just 'because' then go for it!

[Lourdes]

So long as you're using hardware RAID then you can go with extremely low spec components and it doesn't matter. Just any cheap mATX board with onboard Gigabit that will take a PCI-E RAID 5/6 card, undervolt whatever CPU you use and run it at a lower clockspeed.

[jamiesalter]

Thanks for replies...I'm quite warming to the idea of building a NAS rather than buying one if for nothing else than the fun of it.

I would also quite like the box to have the capability of web hosting say a PHP and MySQL site and also bittorrent downloading etc. Although cheaper, I'm more inclined to put more power in than necessary and then underclock it so that if in the future i want it to do more demanding tasks i have the capability.

Thanks for the heads up about not using the Q6600. A quick look on scan shows an AMD X2 4400 at £35, would this be a wise choice? with a fairly cheap motherboard, average PSU and memory and expensive raid card, it may come out less than budget including disks (if budget = £500).

Another quick question...do you think it's worth investing in a hot swappable drive bay?

[Pebble]

Another quick question...do you think it's worth investing in a hot swappable drive bay?

Personally I'd say no, at least not in your situation. Unless you're in a situation where you can't afford about 20 minutes down time to replace a failed drive, it's not worth it. Ask yourself, if a drive fails, can you or anyone else in your house hold go without being able to watch, listen, or generally access, anything that is hosted on your NAS for maybe 20minutes? :-)

[Pebble]

I should probably correct myself a little, without swappable drive bays (and unless you have a spare replacement drive around when a failure occurs), you're really looking at two down times. One to take out the faulty drive, and then another down time when you receive a replacement drive after having RMA'd or purchased a replacement. But still, I'll stick with saying hot swappable bays aren't worth it for your purpose.

[Lourdes]

Thanks for the heads up about not using the Q6600. A quick look on scan shows an AMD X2 4400 at £35, would this be a wise choice? with a fairly cheap motherboard, average PSU and memory and expensive raid card, it may come out less than budget including disks (if budget = £500).

For the same price you can get a 45w 4050e. Still overkill for anything you'll do on the server and less energy than the 4400.

I should probably correct myself a little, without swappable drive bays (and unless you have a spare replacement drive around when a failure occurs), you're really looking at two down times. One to take out the faulty drive, and then another down time when you receive a replacement drive after having RMA'd or purchased a replacement. But still, I'll stick with saying hot swappable bays aren't worth it for your purpose.

Further to thhis hotswappable bays let you swap drives if you have a big racked up server. For a normal PC in a normal case swapping disks is no problem.

[jamiesalter]

ok...so i know its overkill, but something like:
Abit NF-M2S-V...£30
AMD 4400...£35 (will need a cooler though as OEM...£5)
2GB OCZ Ram...£30 (possibly x2 so 4GB)
Adaptec 5405...£235
Corsair VX 550W...£50
Case...£50
4x320GB Samsung HD321KJ...4x£35=£140

Therefore total cost is around £525...quickly adds up...may reduce the RAID card.
Is there anything you would change/reduce/increase to improve balance from the above?

[SiM]

I would get bigger drives... 500gb drives under £45 now... 2gb ram will be enough, i would go for the lower wattage cpu mentioned above and get a corsair 450w instead of 550w

[jamiesalter]

Okay, here's where i'm at:
-Still a little unsure on the RAID card but it seems a fair choice with more than enough options. Does anyone have any experience with any high end RAID cards?
-The lower wattage CPU seems slightly more expensive and less powerful than the 4400. However it is 45W compared to 65W. All things considered, power consumption isn't a major factor for me...apart from cheaper power bills are there any other advantages?
-With the memory haven't much idea as to which brand. Have always used Corsair in the past, but have never bought value ram so don't know whose more reliable. Will want 2x1GB @ 800Mhz. Any suggestions?
-With motherboards I'm not a fan of Asus, but like Abit. Would be willing to try different brands (eg Gigabyte) if anyone suggests a good alternative. Needs onboard graphics.
-The Corsair 450W PSU seems to fit the bill nicely.
-With hard drives is the performance increase gained from having single platter (ie the new AAKS) wasted on a NAS...ie does it bottleneck with the hard drive or the gigabit or RAID card usually? Are their single platter 500GB drives?
-Is it sensible buying a decent motherboard with 10/100/1000 ethernet or buying a very stable one and adding a gigabit NIC? Are their any advantages to be gained by doing this?

Sorry for all the questions...haven't built for about a year, so slightly rusty.

Cheers.

[SiM]

Lower wattage cpu: run cooler, overclock more, less strain on PSU, lower PSU can be used, power bills. Not all apply to NAS, but NAS doesn't need that much speed especially if you are using hardware raid... IMO get the cheapest, 45W cpu... 4050e would be more than enough... remember some people run NAS on mini ITX systems with hardware raid without any problems.

Ram: Corsair are solid and come with lifetime warranty. will be barely a difference between 2x1gb and 1x2gb...

Hard drive: well I wouldn't worry about platters if you are using raid 0/5/6, it will be more than fast enough for gigabit (generally you can't max out gigabit anyway). I would choose drives based on size not speed. There is no single platter 500gb at the moment, 320w is the biggest... those 320s that you linked above are not single platter anyway...

not sure about the mobo/nic question, maybe someone else can help?

[sjbuck]

I'd ditch the expensive RAID card, it's just not needed from what I've read. Onboard RAID should be more than up to the job, even software raid!