network storage device advice

[captainentropy]

Hi,

I'd like some opinions/advice on a storage solution. I work in a research lab. We have 13 members. We all generate computer data but most of it in small amounts. But the potential is there for massive data files. I do a lot of microscopy that can generate gigabytes of data per day. I'll be doing a lot of genome sequencing too that could also generate lots of large data files. We need to have a central place to store stuff instead of on a dozen flash drives and laptops. We have lots of PCs (XP, Vista, and even an old Win95 machine running a heavily used piece of equipment, BTW this macine runs like a champ, never a problem), lots of Macs, and so far, one Linux box running the software for our Deltavision microscope that will need to connect to offload files from. I want it to be easy to manage and not be something to require lots of technical IT knowledge so that when I leave the lab someone else knows how to manage it (I can handle a lot more technobabble than the others). I'd like to have at least 1 or 2 TB of storage space, mirrored (for at least nominal data backup, I can borrow a tape backup system and backup every week or so). It would also be nice to have a built in web server capability to host a lab website and perhaps research protocols and such that we develop.

I've been looking at the QNAP TS-439 and TS-509 with the 1.6 GHz processor and the Synology solutions with 800 MHz CPUs. I have a DNS-323 at home but I know something like that would be too slow for my lab environment.

My question is, in an environment such as I described would a solution from QNAP or Synology (with the CPU speeds listed) be enough performance for my lab, not enough, or is it overkill? The QNAP has iSCSI and I've read good things about it for an SMB environment (kinda like mine I guess). Or should I consider an entry server from HP or Dell?

I'd like to stay under $1100 total too.

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: captainentropy
I'd like to stay under $1100 total too.

* If you're asking about the NAS only (no HDs), your price target is fine.
* If you're asking about the total NAS + HD setup, your price target isn't reasonable.

Best = QNAP TS-639 + 6 x WD RE3 1TB in RAID 6
Better = QNAP 509 Pro + 5 x WD RE3 1TB in RAID 6
Good = QNAP 509 Pro + 5 x WD Black 1TB in RAID 6

BTW, Your machines should not depend solely on the NAS as the only backup solution.
A periodic off-site backup adds another layer of data redundancy.

 

[taltamir]

what blan said... you can save a lot of money compared to his plan by simply building your own box, and increase performance and capabilities, but that means someone has to know how to manage a linux / solaris server. Which is techy stuff. Not something "anyone can handle". For example, linux has a bunch of very well developed web servers... and solaris has the amazing ZFS filesystem giving unprecedented data protection (but it is a little more work to have it host a web server too).
Be aware that your data generating program should have a bunch of safeguards and error corrections to ensure that files are not corrupted (ZFS does error prevention and correction very well).

I don't think non techies could handle any web server stuff, no matter what OS you use for it.

And don't count on the raid as your only defense against data loss, do offsite backups as well!

 

[taltamir]

alternatively...

I'd like to have at least 1 or 2 TB of storage space

Get this and put two drives in raid1 in it... the cheapest 1, 1.5, or 2TB you can get from WD.
Item=N82E16822107002]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822107002[/L]

 

[captainentropy]

Thanks for the reply Blain.

Now that I see what HDD you recommend, $1100 is low but not by much. Right now the QNAP 509 is $861 and the QNAP 439 is $799. So, two 1TB WD RE3 drives would be $380 (or $260 for the Black). So depending on the drives and 4 or 5 bay QNAP it would be ~$1050-1250.

I'm not sure if we'd need 5-6 TB of storage. If we do we can add drives but as I said, I'd rather start with a smaller amount first. Same with backup storage, I can use the neighboring lab's tape backup no prob. Plus the QNAPs have eSATA and USB ports on the back that I can back up to also.

My main question though was, in an evironment like mine is the options I've listed enough, not enough, or overkill, speed wise (would a 500 MHz QNAP or Synology be too slow)? Also, I've read the RE3 is better suited for RAID but in test reviews the Samsung Spinpoint F1 performed nearl as good or better (in some tests) than the RE3. It's $95 per 1TB drive.

Thanks for your help!

 

[taltamir]

if you build your own box (about 250-300$), you can start with a mirror of two 1TB drives for slightly under 100$ per drive, and it can hold a whole bunch of drives. and add more mirrors as needed. this seems to fit your budget much better, but it WILL require someone who understands *nix type operating systems. (linux, unix, solaris, or whatever you choose)...

Honestly I think the CPU is a bit slow, but it should do an acceptable job.

 

[captainentropy]

Thanks for the reply taltamir,

I'm well aware that I can build my own. I could handle that but I made it a point that it has to be easy to manage for the likelihood that future lab members won't have the skill to manage a custom build like that (I know my boss can't for sure). And we really need networked storage.

And I have a tape backup I can use.

Any advice on the performance angle? Is something like the Qnap 439 or 509 good enough for our needs, not enough, or overkill? It is in the right price range I know.

 

[taltamir]

Understandable... Paying extra for simplicity can make a lot of sense in such situations.

What ARE your PERFORMANCE needs?... you said what your storage needs are (at least 1TB...), and that you want to host a webserver, MAYBE... But how many MB/s sustained write do you need the array to be able to handle?

 

[captainentropy]

thanks again taltamir. Too slow huh? What specs should I be aiming for then?

Too bad the HP mediaserver limits to 10 users. I suppose I could consider building one and uses MS server 2003. But I'm not sure if it supports Time Machine like the home server does. We have enough macs that they would want that ability.

 

[captainentropy]

taltamir,

that's a good question. I'm not sure the sustained write speeds we'll need. Most of the reading and writing would be of smallish files (image files, PPT, word files, a few MB or less each). My files would be much larger (60-100 MB and lots of them) but so far it would be just me that would have really large files to transfer.

I suspect the Qnap 439/509 would work fine since it's made to target the SMB environment but I don't want to set it up only to find it's actually too slow. I'll ask the neighboring lab what they use, I know it's a custom build and they have a systems administrator. I'll ask him.

thanks!

 

[taltamir]

its not really too slow, id just prefer it faster.
and for your useage i see no specific need. an example of a need would be where you have a device that needs to do something in real time. ex: playing hd video requires a minimum amount of mb/s read speed. and if you have an instrument that captures 10MB/s of video you want a device that can handle that or data will be lost. you however seem to only use it to store files, not as the active capture device.

 

[captainentropy]

Thanks taltamir,

we capture time-lapse images off our microscope camera but it is certainly not reaching 10 MB/s. We store the files locally (>500 GB free space) and then we would offload them to the file server.

Sounds like the QNAP would be a good choice then.

I asked the systems admin in the lab I mentioned. They have a 12 TB array with a 1.4 Ghz CPU and 512 MB RAM. So it's about what the QNAP is speed wise.

Theirs gets a lot of use so I feel better now with going with a QNAP. They use the cheapest drives they could get at the time. He said they definitely weren't chosen with the interest in maximum performance (obviously), except he made sure they had the largest cache (32MB). It looks like the WD Black 1TB is the best performer for the money ($110). And although it did poorly in the IOMeter benchmark, the Samsung Spinpoint F1 is solid for the money ($94). It did very well in the real world file copy tests. http://techreport.com/articles.x/15588/5.