Build Fileserver VS NAS

[aboutblank]

I want a dedicated storage box in my home. Here are the requirements:

Gigabit
Hardware RAID 5
Linux based (I like Ubuntu)
SATA

Not too bad if you ask me. Here's my solutions:

Option 1:
Thecus N5200 NAS - $640
*Convenient little box
*Easy Setup
*Pricey
*I know it will work
*Gets 40 MB/s write and 50 MB/s read speeds. I think that's great.

Option 2:
Build my own server. From what people tell me, I need a 3ware card to have *true* hardware raid. I have a Promise TX4310 right now, and linux sees 3 drives because apparently it's fakeRaid (driver driven).

3ware 9650SE 4-port - $335
Compatibility List

Intel D975XBX2 - $147
That's the cheapest mobo that is on the compatibility list. It's an open box, and the retail one is $200.

LGA 775 Celeron D @ 3 ghz - $50
The cheapest LGA 775 proc.

The hardware compatibility list for the 3ware card is pretty short. There are two mobos using the Intel 975X chipset, so do you think if I bought the $120 DFI board with the same chipset, it would work?

My Dad and I were talking about how the actual PC might be more modular and could be used later. I want this box to stay together without maintenance until SATA dies. I want to be able to upgrade/replace the drives, resize the array, etc. At that time, both of these setups will be obsolete.

So there's the two options. Which would you go with and why?
Thanks for your time!

 

[Nothinman]

I would kill the idea of requiring hardware RAID 5, Linux software RAID is just fine and as long as the controller and drives support hotswap you should be able to replace them on the fly too. And I doubt you'll be running anything CPU intensive on the box so spending those cycles on RAID won't hurt anything.

 

[aboutblank]

I've been trying to do software RAID 5 on linux with the Promise controller, but I've been having SO many problems. I'm doing RAID 1 over 3 drives for boot, a swap on each drive, then the rest is spent on a RAID 5 array. Under Ubuntu, it fails to boot when I take out a HD. It seems to be just more of a pain than it's worth. Someone at Hardforum brought up a good point - at nearly $600, I could spend that money on larger drives and use RAID 1.

 

[Nothinman]

RAID1 is mirroring and is limited to 2 members per set so I don't know how you're doing it across 3 drives unless one's a hot spare. But RAID1 won't be expandtable though, with RAID5 you can add more drives to the volume and reshape it.

 

[nweaver]

indeed, Linux SW raid is often faster then many hardware solutions (your proc has much more processing power to compute the parity for a raid 5 array)

Realize that you have to have your /boot on a single drive or raid 1 (won't work on a raid 5). I would: Get 2 older, small IDE drives, run a raid 1 for / (which would include /boot) and then set up 3 drives (or more) for raid 5 as /home or /storage or wherever you want to put it. YOu have to use the "alternative install" cd for Ubuntu to do software raid. At that point, you are just using the Debian installer, so you might go with Deb Stable, as it's a good, solid solution.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
RAID1 is mirroring and is limited to 2 members per set so I don't know how you're doing it across 3 drives unless one's a hot spare. But RAID1 won't be expandtable though, with RAID5 you can add more drives to the volume and reshape it.

RAID1 is possible with more than 2 drives. The data just gets copied more times.

 

[Nothinman]

RAID1 is possible with more than 2 drives. The data just gets copied more times.

I can get how it's possible but I've never seen anyone do it.

 

[Nothinman]

I just tested it to be sure it really did work. I created a 3 drive mirror with mdadm just fine. I'm not surprised that it worked but the thought of mirroring with more than 2 drives never even occurred to me.

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
I just tested it to be sure it really did work. I created a 3 drive mirror with mdadm just fine. I'm not surprised that it worked but the thought of mirroring with more than 2 drives never even occurred to me.

probably because if you have 3, the instant thought is raid5, and with 4 it's raid 10. Makes sense you could do it, though.

 

[Nothinman]

probably because if you have 3, the instant thought is raid5, and with 4 it's raid 10. Makes sense you could do it, though.

That and you lose twice as much space when using 3 drives for RAID1. At least with RAID5 you get N-1 amount of space instead of just 1.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

probably because if you have 3, the instant thought is raid5, and with 4 it's raid 10. Makes sense you could do it, though.

That and you lose twice as much space when using 3 drives for RAID1. At least with RAID5 you get N-1 amount of space instead of just 1.

yeah you would really have to care about your data to use more than 2 disks in a mirror. I think the reason for the op's method is because he had 3 disks, but the /boot partition must be on either non-RAID or RAID1 partitions. So he could keep the disks equal he created on each of the 3 disks: 1 partition for /boot (as a Raid1 array), 1 partition for swap, and 1 partition for a Raid5 array to hold the rest of his data.

Seems reasonable in this case.