• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

building a NAS (network attatched storage) server

M

MonsterMac

Senior member
I'd like to build a server that I can map to my own computer as a network attatched storage hard drive. I'm thinking of raiding maybe 4 - 6 320gb WD SATA150 hard drives, but here are my questions. Which raid should I do? I'd like the most cost effective one, but also if one drive fails i'd like the ability to replace it. my next question, is what OS should I use. I am a complete Linux n00b (i've tried it, but don't feel very comfortable using it) so would you guys recommend going with a windows OS (if so, what one?) or would it be easy enough to get say a samba server up and running without too much if any linux knowledge. any comments/input are appreciated.
 
As for the type of Raid array......I would go with either Raid 5 or 10 if possible (if you can afford a controller for it). That way you get the speed and reliability of Raid 0+1 but don't give up half the hdds to use as backups.

I've used WinXP for file serving and it does fine. I prefer Server 2k3 myself, but the little I have dabbled into Linux shows me that you can usually setup the Samba share during setup.
 
i'm just worried about how secure it would be, is there any difference in level of security of using linux with samba, or using windows files/printer sharing?
 
also - with raid 5 how does it work exactly? i know about the striping and all that but i can't find any info on the min/max number of drives, and how the data is distributed between teh drives that are in raid5, and how much of the available storage combined on the drives owuld be usable storage.
 
To two hit from google:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redundant_array_of_independent_disks#RAID_5
http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/raid/levels/singleLevel5-c.html

I won't feel comfortable putting my data on a particular RAID if I am not familiar with the data recovery scenario when there's a disk failure.
I hope you have a plan B (a real backup) if you're going to RAID-5.

Even though RAID-Z/ZFS on OpenSolaris has quite some advantage over software (even hardware)-based RAID-5, it's probably too exotic for you 🙂 Plus it's still beta.

 
Originally posted by: MonsterMac
also - with raid 5 how does it work exactly? i know about the striping and all that but i can't find any info on the min/max number of drives, and how the data is distributed between teh drives that are in raid5, and how much of the available storage combined on the drives owuld be usable storage.
Click to expand...

Linux running samba on a private network will only let in whoever you give the password and network access to. *shrug*

Raid 5 needs at least three drives, and you lose one of the drives to parity. If "X" represents real data, and "P" represents parity, I believe Raid5 works like this:

drive:
123

XXP
XPX
PXX
XXP
XPX
PXX
...
 
hmm i had a sort of similar question liek this except my hard drive situation is a bit less. albeit smaller because it's just the hard drives that im nabbing off older machines i have lying aroudn the house. im comfortable enough w/ linux to use it but not really with samba. i have a couple ide 80 gig hard drives that i want to use for ripped to divx movies (of course ones that i own...) as well as music and TV shows. ill probably be adding hard drives later and i dont really care all that much about data loss. what raid should i use? i'd like to map it as well so that i can download things directly to the server from another computer im assuming i can do that through samba as well.
 
Originally posted by: silverpig
Originally posted by: MonsterMac
also - with raid 5 how does it work exactly? i know about the striping and all that but i can't find any info on the min/max number of drives, and how the data is distributed between teh drives that are in raid5, and how much of the available storage combined on the drives owuld be usable storage.
Click to expand...

Linux running samba on a private network will only let in whoever you give the password and network access to. *shrug*

Raid 5 needs at least three drives, and you lose one of the drives to parity. If "X" represents real data, and "P" represents parity, I believe Raid5 works like this:

drive:
123

XXP
XPX
PXX
XXP
XPX
PXX
...
Click to expand...

OK, I think I understand now. So theoretically, If I put together 3 drives with 300gb of space, i'd have 600gb to play around with and what not. Alright so it looks like Raid5 is what I will go with, and 5 320gb drives will be my 'raid'.

Is there any easy way to graphically configure samba - I mean not having to do it all in the terminal/konsole/console, is there some sort of graphical utility where I can easily specifiy what I do and don't want without having to know specific commands and stuff like that? Maybe a specific distrobution that makes using samba easy for linux noobs? Any ideas?

 
If your not comfortable with setting up your own file server then it's easy to do with special purpose linux distros that are designed specificly to just be used in small networks.

Something like ClarkConnect is a thing specificly setup for people that aren't familar with Linux administration who need a SOHO-style solution.
Firewall, antivirus, email, file sharing, etc etc etc.
http://www.clarkconnect.com/info/compare.php

Easy to use web configuration, updates, and such.

They have several commercial versions for different size orginizations and the 'home' edition is a free iso download.

It'll be a lot cheaper (even if you choose a pay-for edition) and much more capable then Windows 2003 server, and a hell of a lot more features then Windows XP pro setup.

There are a few others like that.

And RAID is ok... but it's nothing compared to actual backups. Invest in a couple nice DVD drives. Although it's not suppose to happen a corrupting drive can ruin data on other drives and a electrical problem or a hardware problem can still ruin all your information.

Backups are required. Raid is just for high aviability and performance.. not for real data integrity.
 
Originally posted by: drag
If your not comfortable with setting up your own file server then it's easy to do with special purpose linux distros that are designed specificly to just be used in small networks.

Something like ClarkConnect is a thing specificly setup for people that aren't familar with Linux administration who need a SOHO-style solution.
Firewall, antivirus, email, file sharing, etc etc etc.
http://www.clarkconnect.com/info/compare.php

Easy to use web configuration, updates, and such.

They have several commercial versions for different size orginizations and the 'home' edition is a free iso download.

It'll be a lot cheaper (even if you choose a pay-for edition) and much more capable then Windows 2003 server, and a hell of a lot more features then Windows XP pro setup.

There are a few others like that.

And RAID is ok... but it's nothing compared to actual backups. Invest in a couple nice DVD drives. Although it's not suppose to happen a corrupting drive can ruin data on other drives and a electrical problem or a hardware problem can still ruin all your information.

Backups are required. Raid is just for high aviability and performance.. not for real data integrity.
Click to expand...


That ClarkConnect looks like exactly what I would want. My main reason for using the raid would be so it would seem like there was only one NAS device (one 'hdd' instead of numerous hdd's) although I suppose that wouldn't matter much, I'd just need to figure out how to split my data across it. Why would you say invest in some nice dvd drives?
 
Originally posted by: drag
If your not comfortable with setting up your own file server then it's easy to do with special purpose linux distros that are designed specificly to just be used in small networks.

Something like ClarkConnect is a thing specificly setup for people that aren't familar with Linux administration who need a SOHO-style solution.
Firewall, antivirus, email, file sharing, etc etc etc.
http://www.clarkconnect.com/info/compare.php

Easy to use web configuration, updates, and such.

They have several commercial versions for different size orginizations and the 'home' edition is a free iso download.

It'll be a lot cheaper (even if you choose a pay-for edition) and much more capable then Windows 2003 server, and a hell of a lot more features then Windows XP pro setup.

There are a few others like that.

And RAID is ok... but it's nothing compared to actual backups. Invest in a couple nice DVD drives. Although it's not suppose to happen a corrupting drive can ruin data on other drives and a electrical problem or a hardware problem can still ruin all your information.

Backups are required. Raid is just for high aviability and performance.. not for real data integrity.
Click to expand...

exactly. hardly any of the servers here at work rely on raid, because we do daily/weekly/monthly backups and send them offsite. any information that is truly valuable should be put on backup media and be stored away from the server. anything that I want to save gets put on a dvd and stored in my safe.
 
Originally posted by: MonsterMac
Originally posted by: drag
If your not comfortable with setting up your own file server then it's easy to do with special purpose linux distros that are designed specificly to just be used in small networks.

Something like ClarkConnect is a thing specificly setup for people that aren't familar with Linux administration who need a SOHO-style solution.
Firewall, antivirus, email, file sharing, etc etc etc.
http://www.clarkconnect.com/info/compare.php

Easy to use web configuration, updates, and such.

They have several commercial versions for different size orginizations and the 'home' edition is a free iso download.

It'll be a lot cheaper (even if you choose a pay-for edition) and much more capable then Windows 2003 server, and a hell of a lot more features then Windows XP pro setup.

There are a few others like that.

And RAID is ok... but it's nothing compared to actual backups. Invest in a couple nice DVD drives. Although it's not suppose to happen a corrupting drive can ruin data on other drives and a electrical problem or a hardware problem can still ruin all your information.

Backups are required. Raid is just for high aviability and performance.. not for real data integrity.
Click to expand...


That ClarkConnect looks like exactly what I would want. My main reason for using the raid would be so it would seem like there was only one NAS device (one 'hdd' instead of numerous hdd's) although I suppose that wouldn't matter much, I'd just need to figure out how to split my data across it. Why would you say invest in some nice dvd drives?
Click to expand...

Because I figure DVD burners are the most inexpensive and easiest way to backup data. 😛
Although tape backup is better for automation and larger amounts of data.

With Linux there is no C or D drive, as you may know... Every device is mounted to a directory.. so it's easy to split data across multiple drives by using directories.

But if you want clarkconnect can support both software raid and hardware raid. Linux software raid is cheap and very fast, faster then most hardware raid. Just uses up the cpu cycles.. (buy a fast cpu) but you loose the ability to do hotswap and some extra data protection that hardware raid can provide. The main advantage is that it doesn't require special hardware though.

BTW inexpensive 'raid' cards like onboard raid "RAID 0/1" devices are actually BIOS raid devices were they are done in software anyways.
 
Originally posted by: rmrf
Originally posted by: drag
If your not comfortable with setting up your own file server then it's easy to do with special purpose linux distros that are designed specificly to just be used in small networks.

Something like ClarkConnect is a thing specificly setup for people that aren't familar with Linux administration who need a SOHO-style solution.
Firewall, antivirus, email, file sharing, etc etc etc.
http://www.clarkconnect.com/info/compare.php

Easy to use web configuration, updates, and such.

They have several commercial versions for different size orginizations and the 'home' edition is a free iso download.

It'll be a lot cheaper (even if you choose a pay-for edition) and much more capable then Windows 2003 server, and a hell of a lot more features then Windows XP pro setup.

There are a few others like that.

And RAID is ok... but it's nothing compared to actual backups. Invest in a couple nice DVD drives. Although it's not suppose to happen a corrupting drive can ruin data on other drives and a electrical problem or a hardware problem can still ruin all your information.

Backups are required. Raid is just for high aviability and performance.. not for real data integrity.
Click to expand...

exactly. hardly any of the servers here at work rely on raid, because we do daily/weekly/monthly backups and send them offsite. any information that is truly valuable should be put on backup media and be stored away from the server. anything that I want to save gets put on a dvd and stored in my safe.
Click to expand...

very good point. all I would have on the server would be my own ripped divx/tv shows/mp3 and my freeware software i've downloaded (i'm on dial up when i'm at home) for easy access to all that. I have invested in some external hard drives for my VERY important stuff that I cannot afford to lose. Come to think of it it wouldn't be a huge or devastating loss to lose any of that media, just a pain to get it all back again. I think I will give clarkconnect a try - first on my laptop - would that give me a good idea of how to use it you think?

 
Probably.

I've never used it personally. Always used Linux and like building Debian-based items for myself.. but I beleive that clarkconnect is ment to mostly administrated from a seperate computer.. so to see how that is then you'd want to have a 2nd computer to browse from.

Also since laptop hardware is more dififcult to support and clark is ment for just generic pcs then things like wifi support and such may not be so hot.
 
yeah, if anyything i'd use just the standard ethernet to see if i could get it configured properly. seems like a very promising program, i'll have to see how well I can get it configured before I make any final decisions (and start buying server parts). while i'm on the topic of a server, what kind of hardware am I looking at having to buy if i'm planning on streaming mp3/videos/tv and all that over a 100mbit lan?
 
Originally posted by: rmrf
Originally posted by: drag
If your not comfortable with setting up your own file server then it's easy to do with special purpose linux distros that are designed specificly to just be used in small networks.

Something like ClarkConnect is a thing specificly setup for people that aren't familar with Linux administration who need a SOHO-style solution.
Firewall, antivirus, email, file sharing, etc etc etc.
http://www.clarkconnect.com/info/compare.php

Easy to use web configuration, updates, and such.

They have several commercial versions for different size orginizations and the 'home' edition is a free iso download.

It'll be a lot cheaper (even if you choose a pay-for edition) and much more capable then Windows 2003 server, and a hell of a lot more features then Windows XP pro setup.

There are a few others like that.

And RAID is ok... but it's nothing compared to actual backups. Invest in a couple nice DVD drives. Although it's not suppose to happen a corrupting drive can ruin data on other drives and a electrical problem or a hardware problem can still ruin all your information.

Backups are required. Raid is just for high aviability and performance.. not for real data integrity.
Click to expand...

exactly. hardly any of the servers here at work rely on raid, because we do daily/weekly/monthly backups and send them offsite. any information that is truly valuable should be put on backup media and be stored away from the server. anything that I want to save gets put on a dvd and stored in my safe.
Click to expand...

Yeah but this guy is talking about serving divx rips of movies he already has on DVD... 😛

And he's talking about 1.2 TB of storage. Try burning that to DVD.
 
Originally posted by: drag
Originally posted by: MonsterMac
Originally posted by: drag
If your not comfortable with setting up your own file server then it's easy to do with special purpose linux distros that are designed specificly to just be used in small networks.

Something like ClarkConnect is a thing specificly setup for people that aren't familar with Linux administration who need a SOHO-style solution.
Firewall, antivirus, email, file sharing, etc etc etc.
http://www.clarkconnect.com/info/compare.php

Easy to use web configuration, updates, and such.

They have several commercial versions for different size orginizations and the 'home' edition is a free iso download.

It'll be a lot cheaper (even if you choose a pay-for edition) and much more capable then Windows 2003 server, and a hell of a lot more features then Windows XP pro setup.

There are a few others like that.

And RAID is ok... but it's nothing compared to actual backups. Invest in a couple nice DVD drives. Although it's not suppose to happen a corrupting drive can ruin data on other drives and a electrical problem or a hardware problem can still ruin all your information.

Backups are required. Raid is just for high aviability and performance.. not for real data integrity.
Click to expand...


That ClarkConnect looks like exactly what I would want. My main reason for using the raid would be so it would seem like there was only one NAS device (one 'hdd' instead of numerous hdd's) although I suppose that wouldn't matter much, I'd just need to figure out how to split my data across it. Why would you say invest in some nice dvd drives?
Click to expand...

Because I figure DVD burners are the most inexpensive and easiest way to backup data. 😛
Although tape backup is better for automation and larger amounts of data.

With Linux there is no C or D drive, as you may know... Every device is mounted to a directory.. so it's easy to split data across multiple drives by using directories.

But if you want clarkconnect can support both software raid and hardware raid. Linux software raid is cheap and very fast, faster then most hardware raid. Just uses up the cpu cycles.. (buy a fast cpu) but you loose the ability to do hotswap and some extra data protection that hardware raid can provide. The main advantage is that it doesn't require special hardware though.

BTW inexpensive 'raid' cards like onboard raid "RAID 0/1" devices are actually BIOS raid devices were they are done in software anyways.
Click to expand...


so say I had two 300gb drives running linux (or clarkconnect) it would recognize 600gb of available space to put data?? also, would this mean that say I had 400gb of mp3 and one directory, it would write 300gb to one drive, and 100gb to the other, am i understanding this right?
 
It doesn't really matter which drive the data gets written to because the OS sees the 3 drives as one big drive. The hardware (or software) raid controller is what makes sure everything is written to the drives properly, so the user doesn't have to worry about that.

For my file server I built I have a Pentium 3 450Mhz CPU with 256MB of ram. The thing has 2 120GB Seagate drives in RAID 1, all running Win2k Pro. It works great for a basic file server, especially ghost backups. It has been running without a reboot for 2 months now 😛. I am trying to break my old record of 4months and 3 days 😛.

For a basic fileserver, you don't need that powerful of a computer, because you are limited to the 100Mbps that the network can actually deliver. Even though newer computers can write faster and be more efficient in using the network... the network becomes a main bottleneck at around 1.6-1.8Ghz, depending on the machine. At least this is with my own tests. That's why I run an old but trusty P3, just used from old parts around the house (and a computer I found that someone was throwing out... yes I'm a garbage picker 😛). The only time you will want to use a faster computer is when you are using Gigabit Network speeds, or 1000Mbps. Other than that, I think an older PC wil suffice... and Win2k Pro would be my OS of choice for home file serving purposes.
 
Is there any easy way to graphically configure samba - I mean not having to do it all in the terminal/konsole/console, is there some sort of graphical utility where I can easily specifiy what I do and don't want without having to know specific commands and stuff like that? Maybe a specific distrobution that makes using samba easy for linux noobs? Any ideas?
Click to expand...

Samba comes with SWAT, a web tool to configure it. But as long as you can launch a text editor and restart the Samba processes you'll be fine. You need to edit _1_ file, /etc/samba/smb.conf, and create passwords for any users you want to create, i.e. smbpasswd -a user, and that's about it. And most of the defaults for Samba will be fine, you'll just need to add any new shares that you want.
 
do you use drive mapping in win2k pro? becuase that's what I would like to do, but i'm not sure how secure it is. my plan would be to tightVNC into the computer to run ftp programs and all that, but i would also like to see the hdd's on my machine as mapped drives so i can play my mp3's directly off that.
 
In the past I have and it works fine, although I don't have any personal Windows machines any more.

You're over analyzing things. If you want easy filesharing with Windows you're stuck with SMB/CIFS and Linux/Samba and Windows will be equal. Samba is more flexible and you could do some extra things like restrict smbd to certain IPs, but that's pretty much pointless. And hell, you're use of VNC is probably much more of a security risk than filesharing with SMB/CIFS.
 
VNC by itself doesn't encrypt the stream at all, so once you're connected someone could rebuild all of your desktop images and movements. And I think the password is encrypted with single DES which can be bruteforced fairly quickly with a fast machine.
 
well taht's not good, thanks for the input. are there any secure ways to use a virtual desktop with windows (if that's the way I choose to go). i'm playing around with ClarkConnect now - still trying to make a decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top