• 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.

Home file server Build questions

O

oneofusjustin

Member
im looking to build a simple home file server. It will be used for NOTHING besides offloading and backing up pictures and videos from my current workstation box. I will be using a basic 2 drive raid 1 setup. but i have a couple questions, mainly because i tend to overkill on hardware, but im trying to make this a budget build.

1. How low can i go on CPU power? Single core?

2. How much ram do i need?

3.What area of hardware will actually control my transfer speeds?
3a is there a faster connection than Ethernet for file transfers? this box will be on the same desk as work station. So i have no problem using a direct hardwire, and then just using lan for my laptop and other boxes.

trying to keep this under $350
 
It sounds like a simple external drive may be a better solution. Something with USB3 or esata should be faster than an ethernet connected NAS/server.

Something like this might work and it would be <$300 with two 3TB drives.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16817392053

If you need something more attractive you could get one or more enclosures for drives. I'm not sure why RAID is needed.
 
I understand what RAID is. My point is that you can use an adapter like I linked, and simply keep two separate drives with two copies of everything (batch file copies, robocopy, xxcopy, etc.). RAID creates its own complications and problems.

Here's another unit that is cheaper after rebate.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...6&amp;SID=FWc3afvy

You could also buy a dual external USB3/eSata box that has a built in raid controller, if you'd like to go that route.
 
the thing is i dont want an external drive enclosures. i want a 24/7 box. my workstation is not economical even at idle for 24/7 so some windows configured network drive is not an option
 
You need minimal CPU power and not much RAM for a file server used only for backups, especially if you'll be running a Linux or BSD distro, where 2GB will be as much as you'll ever need. An Intel Atom or AMD Fusion would do the job and the mobo/cpu/hsu combos are inexpensive. Just make sure you buy a motherboard with a sufficient number of SATA headers for any storage expansion that you may want to do in the future.

However, I have to agree with the reply above, that if you'll only be doing with it as stated in the OP, then there's little reason to use an online file server - you'd be better off using an external drive. On the other hand, if you also want to do daily backups of your PCs, for instance, a network file server is very convenient. Personally, I would then backup the backup server to an external drive that could be taken off site.
 
Last edited:
I'm still trying to figure out the need for something other than the Synology. It isn't an external hard drive, its a 2 bay NAS. It is on 24x7 and you can access it to do your backups. From a backing up perspective, it is the same as a server. It has its own power, and plugs into your network, just like a server.
 
oneofusjustin said:
the thing is i dont want an external drive enclosures. i want a 24/7 box. my workstation is not economical even at idle for 24/7 so some windows configured network drive is not an option
Click to expand...
Ah, I didn't understand the serving part. I read your OP as just a backup.

For a server, as the guy above me states, CPU power ins't terribly important. The low-end NAS boxes may have problems achieving fast gigabit network speeds because of their super low-end CPU, but any modern CPU for a self-built box will be plenty. If you have parts laying around and you have space for a bigger machine, this may be the way to go.

If you want small, quiet, and efficient, I'm a big fan of the HP microserver boxes. You can get the 54L version for $225-$270AR (setup a slickdeals alert), including everything but the OS and one or more data drives. Put something like Freenas or WHS2011 on it and you're ready to go. They are really great little boxes that are hard to replicate for the price.
 
Chapbass said:
I'm still trying to figure out the need for something other than the Synology. It isn't an external hard drive, its a 2 bay NAS. It is on 24x7 and you can access it to do your backups. From a backing up perspective, it is the same as a server. It has its own power, and plugs into your network, just like a server.
Click to expand...

ok now that does make alot more sense i was under the impression it ran a proprietary OS and would be limited on configuration. this is a little more attractive to me at this point.
 
Binky said:
Ah, I didn't understand the serving part. I read your OP as just a backup.

For a server, as the guy above me states, CPU power ins't terribly important. The low-end NAS boxes may have problems achieving fast gigabit network speeds because of their super low-end CPU, but any modern CPU for a self-built box will be plenty. If you have parts laying around and you have space for a bigger machine, this may be the way to go.

If you want small, quiet, and efficient, I'm a big fan of the HP microserver boxes. You can get the 54L version for $225-$270AR (setup a slickdeals alert), including everything but the OS and one or more data drives. Put something like Freenas or WHS2011 on it and you're ready to go. They are really great little boxes that are hard to replicate for the price.
Click to expand...

That HP box would make a great footrest under my desk! thats a huge +1 to me lol

if i do my own build, what should i go for NIC? dual intel $35 cards be ok?
 
oneofusjustin said:
That HP box would make a great footrest under my desk! thats a huge +1 to me lol
Click to expand...

It's not actually that big, only 8"x10" WxD. That's enough for one foot. At any rate, using a server with critical files on it as a footrest doesn't strike me as a good idea. One kick and say goodbye to your data.
 
dave_the_nerd said:
If you do your own build, and you want to do adapter teaming (speed++) or adapter failover, just get a motherboard with dual NICs. They're a dime a dozen.
Click to expand...

And I can't imagine either teaming or failover is particularly necessary in a backup server that is used in a home environment to backup a PC or two. You're generally talking MBs to a couple GB at most each day for daily backups. We're talking about less than a minute of data transfer each day taking place in the middle of the night. It's hardly worth spending another cent on dual NICs.
 
To give you an idea about needed RAM, a few weeks ago I logged in to my file server. With several months of uptime, and regular use, it had 1.76GB out of 2GB free. CentOs, Samba, Apache (PHP-based web UIs), etc., weren't even able to get it to cache enough RAM to break 256MB. A prior iteration, on an older box, running ClarkConenct (now ClearOS) never made it past 400MB/1GB.

So, the Synology with 512MB should be fine. While it is proprietary hardware and a proprietary OS, it's a proprietary Linux, that you can easily get command-line access on.

An HP Microserver will do you well, too.

Frankly, you can't build a machine too low-end for a basic file server, today, without going down into the RPi/Beagleboard/Sheevaplug level of hardware. You don't want to wantonly sacrifice quality, but performance is a non-issue, for the most part.

Multiple NICs generally won't be worth it, and might not be well-supported by the client OSes and some switches (for increasing bandwidth). With GbE and jumbo frame support, you'll be fine, network-wise (w/o jumbo frames, you'll still have 100Mb beat by several times). For larger files, HDDs still tend to remain the bottleneck, and if backup up a user directory, 100Mb can leave HDDs as bottlenecks.

If you're not using GbE, and don't have many wired devices, consider getting a Netgear or Buffalo N router, especially a flashable one. The Buffalo AirStation HighPower series, with the antennae sticking up, are pretty good ones, IME.
 
Last edited:
Cerb said:
So, the Synology with 512MB should be fine. While it is proprietary hardware and a proprietary OS, it's a proprietary Linux, that you can easily get command-line access on.
Click to expand...

To add to this, there is a very active packaging community for Synology NAS's. You can install ipkg and take advantage of a ton of prepackaged software. Hell, you can even get GCC, and from there you can literally compile and install any Linux software.
 
Cerb said:
Frankly, you can't build a machine too low-end for a basic file server, today, without going down into the RPi/Beagleboard/Sheevaplug level of hardware.
Click to expand...

And yet, most low-end NASs use similar or slower processing and less RAM.

If you build a file server from off the shelf PC type components, you can expect performance levels of a NAS costing several times what you spend. You give up only the neat little package and the turnkey operation. Put a little elbow grease and some free time into it and it's well worth rolling your own.
 
Last edited:
Carson Dyle said:
And yet, most low-end NASs use similar or slower processing and less RAM.

If you build a file server from off the shelf PC type components, you can expect performance levels of a NAS costing several times what you spend. You give up only the neat little package and the turnkey operation. Put a little elbow grease and some free time into it and it's well worth rolling your own.
Click to expand...
I'm not for or against either of the options. But, the NAS boxes are skimping on RAM that's typically not going to be needed on them, unless some of them start using ZFS or BTRFS.

I think the NAS boxes make a lot of sense for small businesses, especially with an option to add domain authentication, because they don't cost that much, and are huge time-savers, compared to making such a server.

The OEM server that needs filling still requires you to add parts, but is a plain x86 server to install whatever on, offers some server amenities, and you don't have to go figure out all your parts.

The DIY route allows customization, and cost saving on parts, that may or may not exceed the OEM-based build, but requires a bit more initial time and effort.

Since all of them can about fit the OP's budget, it's just a matter of preferred compromises, IMO.
 
Cerb said:
I think the NAS boxes make a lot of sense for small businesses, especially with an option to add domain authentication, because they don't cost that much, and are huge time-savers, compared to making such a server.
Click to expand...

That was the original concept behind NAS. A quick and dirty way of adding network storage in a business environment. And usually cheaper than spec'ing and purchasing a file server, as you generally aren't paying someone like Dell or HP for a full-blown server with associated Windows Server licensing costs, CALs, service contracts, etc.

However, the anemic lower end devices are barely suitable for even the home market. For a multi-user environment of even a very small business, spending well over $1000 is almost always called for, unless you know that the device will seldom be accessed by more than one client simultaneously.

Since all of them can about fit the OP's budget, it's just a matter of preferred compromises, IMO.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Carson Dyle said:
That was the original concept behind NAS. A quick and dirty way of adding network storage in a business environment. And usually cheaper than spec'ing and purchasing a file server, as you generally aren't paying someone like Dell or HP for a full-blown server with associated Windows Server licensing costs, CALs, service contracts, etc.

However, the anemic lower end devices are barely suitable for even the home market. For a multi-user environment of even a very small business, spending well over $1000 is almost always called for, unless you know that the device will seldom be accessed by more than one client simultaneously.
Click to expand...
Depends on what it's used for, and what it's serving. For a mapped document drive, or backup repository, FI, they're perfectly fine. Except for simple streaming writes of backups, even with 20+ users, more than a couple actually doing anything tends to be pretty rare, IME, and they are loafing. As such, even during those times when constantly taking in data to write, they tend to be responsive to other users just wanting their several MBs of stuff. There are very good reasons for full blown servers, even just for file servers, but also still plenty of cases where anything reliable will do the job well enough.

Though, if you really need to use AD, you need to spend the money on Windows. Domain auth works well, IME, but once you need Windows ACLs on files & directories, rather than just read/write at the share level, the NAS box simply will not do the job, no matter what the advertising material and documentation claim. Likewise, if you'll have to deal with random reads and writes from many users, a full-blown Windows, FreeBSD, or Linux box will do the job far better, if just on account of having plenty of room for caching writes, which means more time to spend on those random reads.
 
My experience is that anything based on actual Linux with SATA controllers is pretty reasonable (no internal USB). Doesn't matter if it's x86 or not. You do get into really terrible performance when you run VxWorks or similar crap. Certainly Synology units are well regarded and have a solid, well-tuned Linux-based OS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top