Home file storage server components (advice please)

[MarekXcz]

Hey,

I would like to build a personal storage RAID 1 server at home for my dad who is a photographer and stacks a huge amount of data (I need at least 10 TB to satisfyy him for a while - 4TB will be filled right away from his external drives...). I have some knowledge about regular PC hardware, but I have never needed to know anything about servers. I don't want NAS since I want something that I can configure how I want and upgrade it later on without any limitations.

So here is what I need - an advice on what hardware to buy to build this RAID 1 server:

• Motherboard - I am totally lost here - so many options - preferably as many SATA ports as possible with possibility to extend later
• CPU - preferably power saving one - no need for performance (dual core?)
• RAM - how much? 8GB?
• HDDs - Which you think is the best? Preferably 3TB, since I don't trust 4TB yet
• PSU - again, power saving one
• Connection - I can connect it to router but if there is some direct faster way, please tell me
• System - I guess linux (Ubuntu) wins here, doesn't it?
• UPS - do I need it and can the server be programmed to auto shut-down when UPS kicks in? Or does a simple surge protection power cord suffice?

If you really feel like it, you could even post two options - cheap and even cheaper one

If you don't feel like it, just point out what specs should I look for and I can search for proper items myself and will just check with you the final setup for approval

Thx a lot for any comments! I really need a hand with this.

 

[MustISO]

Others can chime in on the specific parts but if this storage is critical to him or his business I would consider using RAID5 or RAID6 and then cloud storage as a backup. Have some hot spares or at least some spares available for hot swap if a drive fails.

UPS / system can be configured to power down when battery gets to x% left. That's typical for any decent UPS.

 

[MarekXcz]

Well it is not crucial for his bussines, the photography is just a really enthusiasticly pursued hobby of his, so if he looses the data, he will be pretty much "only" really pis*ed off.

But do you think the RAID 5 is worth the extra cash? Is it that more safer than RAID 1?

 

[Hellhammer]

But do you think the RAID 5 is worth the extra cash? Is it that more safer than RAID 1?

RAID 5 is actually cheaper than RAID 1 because only one of the drives in the array will be used for parity (meaning that the array can withstand a failure of one drive). For example, if you put three 3TB HDs in RAID 1, the volume of the array would be only 3TB as the data would be mirrored to the two other drives in the array. With RAID 5 the capacity would be 6TB.

Most motherboards support RAID 5, so you wouldn't even need any extra hardware to accomplish that. Just keep in mind that no form of RAID is a backup because while it protects against a drive failure, it doesn't save you in case of corrupted data.

Personally I would look into used parts if you want to save money. Most components carry at least a 3-year warranty, so as long as you're buying pretty decent stuff it should still be covered. You don't really need the latest hardware for a media server, so I see no need to spend extra money on current gen stuff.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Raid 1 is a dead end if you want to expand it. I would do either raid 5,6 or 10. 5 is probably sufficient for under 10 disks, after that I would look at raid 6. Raid 6 is basically the same as 5 but there are 2 paraties so you can lose two disks. Less of a stressful moment during rebuilds.

I would look at using mdadm raid or ZFS so you are not depending on a proprietary controller.

 

[nickbits]

I would stay away from RAID and have a different backup system. RAID isn't backup.

I've been using WD Greens and My Book externals.

 

[Carson Dyle]

Well it is not crucial for his bussines, the photography is just a really enthusiasticly pursued hobby of his, so if he looses the data, he will be pretty much "only" really pis*ed off.

That's a damned poor attitude to have if you're tackling this project. Why go to the expense or trouble at all if you accept even a small chance that it all might one day just go *poof*? I'd be a lot more than just "really pissed off".

A very important consideration should be backing up the data. To that end, you may find backing up 10TB very expensive, very cumbersome, or both. Figure out which data is most important and back that up religiously. My guess is that as a photographer he will be storing large raw files and then working with them in PhotoShop or other software. Make sure you backup any "finished" work, and (ideally) the raw files from which they were derived. So figure out how/where to keep these separate and work with him so that he follows procedures that will protect all of his hard work. The bulk of his shots will likely never be used, so if he doesn't want to delete these, at least you'll know that they're a bit less important.

 

[Red Squirrel]

I would stay away from RAID and have a different backup system. RAID isn't backup.

I've been using WD Greens and My Book externals.

Raid AND backups. ALWAYS do raid. Today's hard drives arn't exactly reliable, you don't want to be spending half your time rebuilding the whole system from backups all the time.

I have changed hard drives more times then I can remember in my home raid, I can't imagine if I would have had to deal with being down hard all those times, while I wait for files to copy, then after have to fight with the Linux permissions to get everything to work together again. No thank you.

Always use raid. A drive fails, you replace it, let it rebuild, zero downtime. You do want backups too though but backups are your last resort if you get a complete system failure where the raid can't be recovered or if files get deleted.

 

[MarekXcz]

That's a damned poor attitude to have if you're tackling this project. Why go to the expense or trouble at all if you accept even a small chance that it all might one day just go *poof*? I'd be a lot more than just "really pissed off".

A very important consideration should be backing up the data. To that end, you may find backing up 10TB very expensive, very cumbersome, or both. Figure out which data is most important and back that up religiously. My guess is that as a photographer he will be storing large raw files and then working with them in PhotoShop or other software. Make sure you backup any "finished" work, and (ideally) the raw files from which they were derived. So figure out how/where to keep these separate and work with him so that he follows procedures that will protect all of his hard work. The bulk of his shots will likely never be used, so if he doesn't want to delete these, at least you'll know that they're a bit less important.

Well of coarse I am not trying to be negligent, but on the other hand there is no 100% solution - anything can go poof one day. And I know raid is not exactly a backup, but I am mainly trying to get a storage solution with certain level of HDD failproofness. I can do cloud backup of the "best" shots to ensure they are stored even safer. How about that? So RAID 5 or 6. Now, any specifics?

What about this:

• Motherboard: ASUS H87-PRO
• CPU: Intel Core i3-4130T
• RAM: 2x Fujitsu 4GB DDR3 1600 MHz ECC Unbuffered
• Case: ZALMAN MS1000-HS2
• HDDs: WD Red 3TB 64MB cache
• PSU: Enermax NAXN 82+ ADV ETL450AWT 450W

And another question, if I use Linux's LVM and f.x. my motherboard goes poof, can I just switch the board and everything will work fine?

 

[_Rick_]

First of all: Software RAID is the best RAID for pure data availability purposes.
The only reason to go for any CPU power at all, is if you want encryption or ECC RAM.
One means you want AES-NI support (which has apparently trickled down to the i3 Haswells - but is cheaper on FM2: Athlon 2 X2 340 or A4-4000 if you don't have an old graphics card lying around)
The other locks you into a Xeon (or some i3s and most Pentiums) for the Intel side and the AM3+ platform on the AMD side and adds considerable cost, but will increase performance, as using a bigger cache becomes "safer". This is especially relevant if you want to use ZFS or the like, which have aggressive caching algorithms.

Other than that, the cheapest CPU you can find will do.
For the mainboard, more SATA clearly is better, ideally you have around 9-10 internal ports.
ASrock extreme 6 is a good non-ECC board on the Haswell side. On the AMD side, getting to more than 9 ports is pretty difficult. For Intel ECC, there are also a number of boards, look at Supermicro boards specifically.

Case-wise, you need two know whether you prefer externally accessible hot-swap bays to internal, well cooled and isolated drive bays. Write the serial number of each drive on a piece of paper (in the order they are installed in the case), so you can tell which drive is dead, without getting all of them out...

4GB RAM is enough for "slow" file systems, ZFS and other high performance FS benefit from more RAM. But by then ECC also becomes much more interesting.

HDDs: get around 8 or so for storage, and set up a RAID 1 of 2 JBODS (or a JBOD of 4 RAID 1s) or even a RAID 10. Get an additional SSD (40-64 GB) or two for the OS.

PSU: I'd say you can get away with a good 350W PSU if you can find one. Get the smallest PSU with a gold or more 87+ rating, because the system will idle a lot, and saving the odd Watt there might be helpful over the long run, also for thermal reasons. Stability is also often impacted by the PSU. UPS - get a small unit. You mostly want to have enough battery to flush the caches and unmount the storage drives - even 5 minutes at 80 Watts is plenty for that.

Back to the initial topic of this post:
Why would you want encryption?
Because it allows you to pull a faulty disk and send it to the manufacturer without any data possibly leaking. Helps in the case of theft also. It does force you to be extra vigilante with backups though, as occasionally crypto headers get shredded by some overzealous installers, and then there'll be many tears.

For >10 TB RAID 5 isn't really suited (too many disks). Level 6 may be better, but I personally prefer RAID 1 whenever possible. With software RAID you can stack RAIDS easily. 8x3TB in RAID 1 or 10 gives you 12 TB. If you need more, look at 4 TB drives instead - more than 8HDDs in a case often get difficult to place.

A good mainboard would be:
Supermicro X10SL7-F
put an i3 4130 on there and 8GB ECC RAM.
A Chenbro 11269 gives you 8 hot-swap bays behind a door.
A Sea Sonic SSP-350GT PSU might be a good deal, if you find one, if not, there's a 360 Watt G-series that might also be interesting.

And disks: get the cheapest disks you can. Forget about reds, they cost more with no benefit for software RAID. Fetch some greens, or whatever is cheapest at your capacity. Go by warranty if you must, but more than 2 years is unlikely to be worth a significant amount.

I don't use LVM btw, but mdadm. ZFS would also work around LVM. Don't use anything on that motherboard, use everything in software. It will work on any hardware you would want.

 

[smitbret]

You have described a situation that is perfect for unRAID. Check it out:

Www.lime-technology.com

It's a software based RAID 5 system that runs from a flash drive. You can add more drives to the array and expand the storage at anytime. You can throw whatever size disks you want into it and if the RAID becomes somehow unrecoverable, you only lose data on the damaged disks. The data on the remaining disks is completely recoverable.

 

[dighn]

A good mainboard would be:
Supermicro X10SL7-F

I have this board; it's great. the LSI 2308 can be flashed into IT mode for passthru, which is great for ZFS. I would go for ECC RAM and ZFS if you have that much data. freenas is a simpler way to set up a server with ZFS.

 

[beginner99]

I would stay away from RAID and have a different backup system. RAID isn't backup.

absolutely this. RAID onyl adds administration overhead for now real gain in home use. RAID is for up-time, meaning constant access even in case of drive failure. It's not about backup. Proper backup would be external hdds stored off-site, eg. note the same building as the NAS is in.

Raid AND backups. ALWAYS do raid. Today's hard drives arn't exactly reliable, you don't want to be spending half your time rebuilding the whole system from backups all the time.

I have changed hard drives more times then I can remember in my home raid, I can't imagine if I would have had to deal with being down hard all those times, while I wait for files to copy, then after have to fight with the Linux permissions to get everything to work together again. No thank you.

Always use raid. A drive fails, you replace it, let it rebuild, zero downtime. You do want backups too though but backups are your last resort if you get a complete system failure where the raid can't be recovered or if files get deleted.

My WD greens have been running along just fine for the last 3 years and in case of failure I have external HDDs as backup. With MS SyncToy (if you use windows) that would be like 3 clicks to copy the stuff back onto a new drive, which is almost certainly faster than rebuilding a RAID 5/6.
Not to mention that external drives can be plugged into every pc and immediately used if really needed. This is good enough for home use.

Your issues might actually stem from the fact that you use RAID, more strain on the drives and maybe linux itself, green drives were problematic on linux.

So @ OP don't bother with RAID, will just add useless administration overhead and cost (more drives needed). It's way better to just run the drives as they are and have a proper backup plan in place.

 

[Red Squirrel]

absolutely this. RAID onyl adds administration overhead for now real gain in home use. RAID is for up-time, meaning constant access even in case of drive failure. It's not about backup. Proper backup would be external hdds stored off-site, eg. note the same building as the NAS is in.



My WD greens have been running along just fine for the last 3 years and in case of failure I have external HDDs as backup. With MS SyncToy (if you use windows) that would be like 3 clicks to copy the stuff back onto a new drive, which is almost certainly faster than rebuilding a RAID 5/6.
Not to mention that external drives can be plugged into every pc and immediately used if really needed. This is good enough for home use.

Your issues might actually stem from the fact that you use RAID, more strain on the drives and maybe linux itself, green drives were problematic on linux.

So @ OP don't bother with RAID, will just add useless administration overhead and cost (more drives needed). It's way better to just run the drives as they are and have a proper backup plan in place.

But when you rebuild a raid 5 you can still continue to work and zero files have been lost. That's my point. Zero loss of productivity and zero head aches. Raid (or anything logical) cannot cause a disk failure. Disk failures are mechanical, or at a lower level than the OS can access (ex: firmware/disk board). Some people just have better luck than others, but drives do fail completely randomly and do so more now than they ever did before.

I have had failures happen right in the middle of a large project, but I was able to keep working and deal with the failure after. I too have had drives last more than 3 years, but I've also had some fail within a month. It only takes one failure to ruin your day if there's no raid. That fancy windows software may make some things easier, but you still lost everything up to the last backup, and you still have to wait a long time for everything to copy.

Going without raid is as bad as a mistake as going without backups. You want both.

 

[_Rick_]

So @ OP don't bother with RAID, will just add useless administration overhead and cost (more drives needed). It's way better to just run the drives as they are and have a proper backup plan in place.

I disagree - RAID makes disk management easier, not more difficult. I'm running three RAID arrays on Linux, with green drives, old drives, IDE/SATA drives - it's a mess. I did swap one green drive - but that turned out to be a connector issue.
Rebuilding a RAID is always faster than syncing in a backup, because it takes effectively zero time - the data remains available even in degraded mode and while rebuilding.
Plus, because it's online, you get notified immediately when a disk dies - off-line back up disks can die, and you only notice it during your next scheduled backup.

RAID is a huge comfort feature, and as opposed to the unRAID and other proprietary solutions, it's simple enough that not much can go wrong. ZFS similarly is enterprise level software, so I'd trust it. With unRAID...I personally don't have the confidence in the reliability of their solution, simply because they lack the necessary exposure.

RAID doesn't put more strain on disks either. The problem of the green disks where the head park maneuvers, but in a RAID, Linux does not send that command to member disks. So while you get more power-on-hours on the disks, you prevent other types of issues.

My RAID also has zero administration overhead. You put it into place once, and then you get a message when you need to swap disks. Go out, buy a new disk, run the hot-add script, and voilà: youÄre rebuilding and it's hands-off time again. But you still want backups.

Finally: If he needs 10TB contiguous data, you need to fuse the disks in some way. The pain of backing up a JBOD to multiple individual disks sounds pretty sever to me.

 

[MarekXcz]

First of all: Software RAID is the best RAID for pure data availability purposes.
The only reason to go for any CPU power at all, is if you want encryption or ECC RAM.
One means you want AES-NI support (which has apparently trickled down to the i3 Haswells - but is cheaper on FM2: Athlon 2 X2 340 or A4-4000 if you don't have an old graphics card lying around)
The other locks you into a Xeon (or some i3s and most Pentiums) for the Intel side and the AM3+ platform on the AMD side and adds considerable cost, but will increase performance, as using a bigger cache becomes "safer". This is especially relevant if you want to use ZFS or the like, which have aggressive caching algorithms.

Other than that, the cheapest CPU you can find will do.
For the mainboard, more SATA clearly is better, ideally you have around 9-10 internal ports.
ASrock extreme 6 is a good non-ECC board on the Haswell side. On the AMD side, getting to more than 9 ports is pretty difficult. For Intel ECC, there are also a number of boards, look at Supermicro boards specifically.

Case-wise, you need two know whether you prefer externally accessible hot-swap bays to internal, well cooled and isolated drive bays. Write the serial number of each drive on a piece of paper (in the order they are installed in the case), so you can tell which drive is dead, without getting all of them out...

4GB RAM is enough for "slow" file systems, ZFS and other high performance FS benefit from more RAM. But by then ECC also becomes much more interesting.

HDDs: get around 8 or so for storage, and set up a RAID 1 of 2 JBODS (or a JBOD of 4 RAID 1s) or even a RAID 10. Get an additional SSD (40-64 GB) or two for the OS.

PSU: I'd say you can get away with a good 350W PSU if you can find one. Get the smallest PSU with a gold or more 87+ rating, because the system will idle a lot, and saving the odd Watt there might be helpful over the long run, also for thermal reasons. Stability is also often impacted by the PSU. UPS - get a small unit. You mostly want to have enough battery to flush the caches and unmount the storage drives - even 5 minutes at 80 Watts is plenty for that.

Back to the initial topic of this post:
Why would you want encryption?
Because it allows you to pull a faulty disk and send it to the manufacturer without any data possibly leaking. Helps in the case of theft also. It does force you to be extra vigilante with backups though, as occasionally crypto headers get shredded by some overzealous installers, and then there'll be many tears.

For >10 TB RAID 5 isn't really suited (too many disks). Level 6 may be better, but I personally prefer RAID 1 whenever possible. With software RAID you can stack RAIDS easily. 8x3TB in RAID 1 or 10 gives you 12 TB. If you need more, look at 4 TB drives instead - more than 8HDDs in a case often get difficult to place.

A good mainboard would be:
Supermicro X10SL7-F
put an i3 4130 on there and 8GB ECC RAM.
A Chenbro 11269 gives you 8 hot-swap bays behind a door.
A Sea Sonic SSP-350GT PSU might be a good deal, if you find one, if not, there's a 360 Watt G-series that might also be interesting.

And disks: get the cheapest disks you can. Forget about reds, they cost more with no benefit for software RAID. Fetch some greens, or whatever is cheapest at your capacity. Go by warranty if you must, but more than 2 years is unlikely to be worth a significant amount.

I don't use LVM btw, but mdadm. ZFS would also work around LVM. Don't use anything on that motherboard, use everything in software. It will work on any hardware you would want.

Thx a lot man! I might go with your advice! I know what to buy now and I will keep figuring out what raid I will do in the meantime. Thx again to all of you!

I am doing both RAID and backup as Red Squirrel said

 

[smitbret]

I disagree - RAID makes disk management easier, not more difficult. I'm running three RAID arrays on Linux, with green drives, old drives, IDE/SATA drives - it's a mess. I did swap one green drive - but that turned out to be a connector issue.
Rebuilding a RAID is always faster than syncing in a backup, because it takes effectively zero time - the data remains available even in degraded mode and while rebuilding.
Plus, because it's online, you get notified immediately when a disk dies - off-line back up disks can die, and you only notice it during your next scheduled backup.

RAID is a huge comfort feature, and as opposed to the unRAID and other proprietary solutions, it's simple enough that not much can go wrong. ZFS similarly is enterprise level software, so I'd trust it. With unRAID...I personally don't have the confidence in the reliability of their solution, simply because they lack the necessary exposure.

RAID doesn't put more strain on disks either. The problem of the green disks where the head park maneuvers, but in a RAID, Linux does not send that command to member disks. So while you get more power-on-hours on the disks, you prevent other types of issues.

My RAID also has zero administration overhead. You put it into place once, and then you get a message when you need to swap disks. Go out, buy a new disk, run the hot-add script, and voilà: youÄre rebuilding and it's hands-off time again. But you still want backups.

Finally: If he needs 10TB contiguous data, you need to fuse the disks in some way. The pain of backing up a JBOD to multiple individual disks sounds pretty sever to me.

I honestly am not entirely sure about your stance on anything. On one hand you denounce unRAID, claiming "RAID" is the best solution, implying a hardware RAID solution. Just a couple lines later you are declaring a MB based RAID 1 to be the best option.

Sorry, but I will have to strongly disagree with your recomendation of MB based RAID 1. OP would be dropping $ for 20TB of HDDs for 10TB of storage, that's not mentioning the additional HDD he'd need for the OS. What does OP gain for buying all of the extra HDDs? A theoretical increase in speed for loading photos. Seems pointless since just about any storage solution will be more than adequate. Don't forget that those extra drives all use electricity and generate heat as well. More ports necessitates a more expensive board and/or adapter cards and a bigger, louder case. If OP wants to add storage in tbe future he'll either have to add them one at a time as non-RAID disks or buy multiple HDDs to create add'l storage pools that reintroduce the (admittedly small) extra pain of backing up multiple drive pools.

Sorry, but don't discredit unRAID simply because you don't or haven't used it. It is simply the least expensive way to reliably protect continued access to his data and allow him to expand one disk at a time as budget and needs dictate. 5 x 3TB HDDs and hardware that he might have lying around in his closet gives him a real-time, RAID 5 protected setup with 12TB of storage. Frees up a lot of cash for a backup system. If OP thinks he needs more speed or simply wants something with more mmmph, he could look into FreeNAS RAIDz1 or z2. It'll cost more than unRAID for the hardware and use more electricity, thereby higher costs and more heat. Still less money and adds better data protection than RAID 1. There's also FlexRAiD and SnapRAID and their RAID 5/6 equivalents.

Therer are just so many better, less expensive options than RAID 1 out there for home use. I don't know why it is still used for homeservers.

 

[Nec_V20]

Hey,

I would like to build a personal storage RAID 1 server at home for my dad who is a photographer and stacks a huge amount of data (I need at least 10 TB to satisfyy him for a while - 4TB will be filled right away from his external drives...). I have some knowledge about regular PC hardware, but I have never needed to know anything about servers. I don't want NAS since I want something that I can configure how I want and upgrade it later on without any limitations.

So here is what I need - an advice on what hardware to buy to build this RAID 1 server:

• Motherboard - I am totally lost here - so many options - preferably as many SATA ports as possible with possibility to extend later
• CPU - preferably power saving one - no need for performance (dual core?)
• RAM - how much? 8GB?
• HDDs - Which you think is the best? Preferably 3TB, since I don't trust 4TB yet
• PSU - again, power saving one
• Connection - I can connect it to router but if there is some direct faster way, please tell me
• System - I guess linux (Ubuntu) wins here, doesn't it?
• UPS - do I need it and can the server be programmed to auto shut-down when UPS kicks in? Or does a simple surge protection power cord suffice?

If you really feel like it, you could even post two options - cheap and even cheaper one

If you don't feel like it, just point out what specs should I look for and I can search for proper items myself and will just check with you the final setup for approval

Thx a lot for any comments! I really need a hand with this.

The first step would be the PSU and I would suggest a SeaSonic SS-660XP:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16817151121

Why not go for a hybrid system that can back up as a HomeTheatre PC?

In this case you could get the Gigabyte GA-G1.Sniper A88X FM2/FM2+ motherboard:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813128653

and combine it with an AMD A10-6800k APU:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819113331

For the chassis I would go for a CoolerMaster HAF Stacker because of the exceptional expandability:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16811119290

For RAM you could get a 4*4GB set to make up 16GB. I have no real recommendation here except to get the best for the cheapest price because the prices seem to be all over the place recently. Just don't buy junk.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the 4TB drives and I would suggest the Seagate NAS HDD ST4000VN000
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822178393

Because they "only" spin at 5900 they will reduce thermal problems.

If Ubuntu give you what you want then well and good otherwise you could go for Win7 (most certainly not Win8).

All in all this would not break the budget and have loads of reserves and has enough CPU power to use the system for something more than just a repository.

 

[aigomorla]

Well it is not crucial for his bussines, the photography is just a really enthusiasticly pursued hobby of his, so if he looses the data, he will be pretty much "only" really pis*ed off.

But do you think the RAID 5 is worth the extra cash? Is it that more safer than RAID 1?

10TB of R1 = R10 = 2 x R0 5TB combined....
Since u cant get 5TB though conventional means... it would mean u would need to create a 5TB R0 array using 5 x 2TB drives, and then double it.
This allows u to lose a combination of disks... about 5 as long as u dont lose the data on both drive sets. meaning... both same drives failed on the exact R0 arrays.
Or u can expand the storage cap to 12TB, and use 3x4TB drives x 2.. for a total of 6 x 4TB drives in R10 for a total of 12TB.

That would mean if ur really set on 10TB effectively you need 10 x 2tb drives to get this type of config, where having 10 drives you will run out of SATA ports on the 7th in most cases.. or the 9th drive in all cases except the super expensive workstation boards with 20 sata ports.

10TB of R5 or Raid-Z will mean u need 6 x 2TB drives where 1 is redundant, to give you 10TB of space with 1 drive fault safe.

So just do the math.... 20x1tb disks... or 6 x 2TB disks to effectively get the storage u need.
Or upgrade to 12TB using 6 x 4TB drives.... either way... its gonna be expensive...

OP... my advice... R0 the primary storage... where ur dad needs to drop pictures in... id say keep a smaller array of arround 4TB... 2x2TB disks in R0, or even better 3x2tb in R0 and give him 6TB of drop space which is fast.

This will be the primary drop box....

Then build a second machine using pure JBOD, it doesnt need to be powerful, u can get away with a very old machine like a unused dell or a C2D... u dont need a complex raid for this machine as its only function is to backup systematically all the data that's in the R0 array on the other machine.

This machine can run like 3x4TB in JBOD... and only need to be on when doing backup.


This would probably be the best combo in network storage and backup...
Because a R0 array will spank a R5 or Raid-Z array in speed without the usage of a dedicated controller.
So your dad gets fast IO when moving pictures on network.

And then u have a PC which systematically backups all the data... but is slower in IO.
But u dont need a fast io for a backup machine... u just need it to be completed.

 

[smitbret]

Bingo!

RAID 1 offers OP no real world benefit at the expense of doubling the # of HDDs he would need. JBOD would be fine and for the cost of 1 more drive you get redundancy.

 

[_Rick_]

Again, it depends on how much one enjoys rebuilding from backup and losing the last n-days of data.
With a RAID, any RAID level >0, you just drop in a disk, and click a button, and you never even notice any problem. With backup, you lose work, have the array offline during the reimaging, and need to maintain a second machine, fi you got the JBOD way. Plus, depending on your backup solution, you may not be aware of the health of your backup drives. With RAID, you can regularly do surface scans and rebuild the array/repair the sector by hand if there are read errors - before they become terminal.

Finally, I say RAID 1, because RAID 5 beyond a certain number of disks becomes a gamble, and RAID 6 is usually not as well implemented in software. And whoever confused software RAID with mainboard RAID - smitbret it was, I think - needs to read up on the differences.

Of course, you can also run RAID 5, but then it's more likely you'll lose data and will have to rebuild from the backup. In the end it depends on the available funding. If there's only money for 5-6x 3TB, then go with R5 or try R6. If the extra two or three disks aren't a problem a RAID 10 offers even higher availability.

As for backups - the more they're effective, the more they're a hassle. The advantage with most data, is that it isn't touched often - BD-backups in multipart tar archive format might be an acceptable baseline solution for yearly off-site backups, with a local quasi-online backup, consisting of external disks on the same machine or something like that. An extra machine sounds a bit insane to me. But that's my personal preference, to go for a decent RAID that doesn't have me go to backup often. And while that doesn't protect you from data loss through stupidity, that's what a decent version management system is for....

 

[Red Squirrel]

Pretty much this. While raid is not a backup, raid is something that will hopefully prevent you from ever needing your backups. Your backups are basically your 2nd and last defence. They also act as a way to archive stuff depending on how you set them up. Ex: in a corporate situation you can go back several months to get something. Usually this is not needed at home though.

Raid is more or less to protect against failed drives, which is the most likely way to lose data. If you delete something by accident or something then that's when the backups come in.

The biggest thing with raid is avoiding downtime, which is just as important at home than work. IMO it's even more important. At home I have better things to do than to spend a night rebuilding a server's file system.

 

[LurchFrinky]

For the amount of storage desired, the likely usage scenario, and the requirement of "cheap"; I would go with a hybrid solution of 4TB RAID1 (currently/recently used data) + 6TB JBOD (older/archive data) = 4 HDDs. It will require some file management on the user's part to periodically transfer files to the JBOD, but he will be doing all of his work on the RAID1.
He will still need a backup solution for 10TB which will be close to as expensive as the NAS itself.

 

[beginner99]

I have had failures happen right in the middle of a large project, but I was able to keep working and deal with the failure after.

We are talking about home media storage not work.

That fancy windows software may make some things easier, but you still lost everything up to the last backup, and you still have to wait a long time for everything to copy.

Nope just plug it in the USB port of my PC and voila, files are there for copying and usage. However keep in mind these a re media files and I survive an evening without them while saving money on drives and my time managing the RAID.

 

[imaheadcase]

Windows Home Server software $40, put together any parts you want, the only thing you need to worry about is how many sata ports are on board. Can put together a decent server for under $500.

Cant' go wrong with it.