NAS quesitons for you computer guys

Discussion in 'Lounge' started by andrew241, Oct 24, 2007.

  1. andrew241

    andrew241 Member

    811
    0
    Ohio
    I am thinking about setting up a NAS at home. I work in IT so I understand it mostly. Do any of you have some setup? What do you think abou tthe little stand alone units with 1 drive, the raid setups with 2 drives get kinda pricey.
     
  2. honestly can't say that i've used or set one up. I would assume that it would be pretty straightforward though. I just run a server at home with a 500gb sata for my network storage.
     

  3. andrew241

    andrew241 Member

    811
    0
    Ohio
    I want my own server!!!!! I still might build a tower and just go from there.
     
  4. vallen

    vallen Well-Known Member

    I've tried almost every brand of NAS- they all suck in one way or another.
    Either bad connectivity (drops off the network or constantly re-logging in), too loud, too hot, HD failures, or terrible copy speed.

    Set up a home server in a closet with lot's of space. Cheaper too since you don't need lots of processor speed. My 2 are a MacMini for music and movies, and an old Dell P4 running Ubuntu Linux for my print and document server. Flawless streaming, small and easy.
     
  5. I use a home server. I have an old p4 2.8 ghz with a bunch of memory and 3 250 gig drives running win2k server.

    I even turned it into a domain server just so that i could learn domain server administration.
     
  6. andrew241

    andrew241 Member

    811
    0
    Ohio
    what about those NAS op systems I see out there? What do you think of those? They basically convert a PC over to a NAS box
     
  7. I don't know that I really see the point. in doing the os conversion route, why not just share the drive to the network.

    I picked up two dell slim towers(gx260 slims) a couple years back with lcd's, kbrd, mouse, etc. for ~125 each. One I am loaning to a friend for his server, the other I use for a file and print server running windows server 2k3. Until I ran updates a week ago it had been up for over a month 8)

    I also have all of the networking hardware(cable modem, router, voip) as well as the server set up on two battery backups(freebies). Each system can run independent of power for about 45min to 1 hour.
     
  8. andrew241

    andrew241 Member

    811
    0
    Ohio
    makes sense, I might have to look into it. I was thiking if i had one of those little NAS boxes it would save space but from all the research I am doing looks like they aren't all that great.
     
  9. vallen

    vallen Well-Known Member

    Yeah they can make them better but they don't. The NasOs' I have seen are pointless in that, you already have an OS that can share on a network. I like Linux b/c it has no overhead speed/memory issues. You can slap it on a low performance machine and it works to the limit of it's network card speed. Memory use is negligible. You only need something like 250MB Ram to clear the Ubuntu Server install. It doesn't run a bunch of useless background junk like windows.
     
  10. herrmannek

    herrmannek Guest

    Slightly of topic. At my work(small microbiology lab) I've built a small 20 computer cluster. Every node has single 250GB HDD that would be wasted when used separately(there is only one central node users can log in)... So I found an application called glusterfs, installed it problem free on cluster nodes(Ubuntu server).. and it seems to work now. Haven't tested it heavily yet...But now I have 5000G storage working seamlessly as one HDD from user point of view. Problem is I have only 100mbit interfaces hooked to this computers so it will be rather slow device, but still its capacity is huge to my standards :)
     
  11. Whittey

    Whittey Guest

    I'd throw an old machine with windows on there if you're already familiar with windows. A base install of 2k3 or XP (or 2k) uses less than 100mb of ram. With the price of hard drives nowadays, i'd do a RAID1 at the minimum just to protect the data.


    -=Whittey=-
     
  12. since my server is for backup purposes I would have done raid1 if it wasn't for the fact that it would require me to reinstall windows and all that good stuff again. The slim tower i'm running really isn't designed for two hdd's anyway, I had to kinda jerry rig the 2nd hard drive into the 3.5" bay for the floppy.
     
  13. vallen

    vallen Well-Known Member

    Hardware RAID? Software RAID? Either way, W2k will ask for much more RAM, esp. in Server config. Ubuntu is lighter and faster. Even minimal install of W2k is burdensome as a server platform.
     
  14. andrew241

    andrew241 Member

    811
    0
    Ohio
    I was thinking about taking my old desktop thats an amd 1000 mhz processor with 768 ram and jsut slapping 2 500 gig drives in it. I don't know how to setup software raid though. It would be good to just run linux on it instead of XP. I have a little bit of Linux knowledge and can mull my way through it. Problem is would be setting up the thing to function as mirrored. I don't want to loose 500 gig of data due to a drive failure.
     
  15. herrmannek

    herrmannek Guest

    software raid in linux should be easy , I believe latests ubuntu server asks if you want it... BUt don't hold me on that...
     
  16. vallen

    vallen Well-Known Member

    Yep- i think you are right.
     
  17. yeah the new ubuntu is nice, I run it on my lappy for the pwoer savings. I haven't tried it in a server setup though. If you feel like experimenting with linux ubuntu is the way to go.

    Despite the bloat, you won't see much of a performance difference using win2k or the like, especially if you do some minor tweaking.