Question for Unraid users

[Anteaus]

I'm currently running a 10TB file server at home. It is comprised of 3 hard drives, each shared individually. I used Debian server for awhile and it worked well but I ultimately shifted to Windows 8.1 (I know...don't hate 😀) for usability issues. Since the server is running headless, I need an easy way to admin the system.

With the Linux system, I used Webmin which I found lacking. More to the point, at the time Debian did not support Webmin due to a potential security flaw so I was mixed about it.

With the Windows system, it is much easier to admin thanks to Teamviewer. To be fair, I did not know that Teamviewer supported Linux prior to switching to Windows for the server so perhaps I should revisit Debian, but that isn't the point of this thread.

Ultimately, I've been looking at Unraid as a possible solution since it is not only engineered for file serving, it has an included web interface for admin purposes. The fact that I need to buy a license is not a factor. Please note that I have zero intent or desire to use any kind of RAID or quasi-RAID setup. I like my drives to be shared individually because it keeps me organized and makes my backup routines very easy with Beyond Compare.

With that I'll ask my question. In spite of the fact that Unraid's main advantage is drive expansion with parity, can I completely avoid it and maintain single drive "Arrays"? My eye is on Unraid for it's NAS capabilities and simplicity, not it's drive extension technology. The official manual doesn't deal with this. All they do all over the site is trumpet about ZFS/drive extension when all I want is a simple file server.

Another question, in spite of their suggestion of a flash drive, can it be installed on an SSD?

Perhaps I should go back to a straight forward Debian/Samba setup but I want to look at more streamlined options first.

 

[Jovec]

The official manual doesn't deal with this. All they do all over the site is trumpet about ZFS/drive extension when all I want is a simple file server.

I would think that is because unRaid is more of a FS/storage tech than a NAS/file server tech. Their core product is the unRAID tech itself. The NAS-like front-end is just to help sell product, but probably not their main focus. Or at least, that is how I always viewed it.

In spite of the fact that Unraid's main advantage is drive expansion with parity, can I completely avoid it and maintain single drive "Arrays"? My eye is on Unraid for it's NAS capabilities and simplicity, not it's drive extension technology.

Based on this, you might want to consider a NAS frontend, like FreeNAS, NAS4Free, or OpenMediaVault. You shouldn't need RAID for any these (just mount your individual drives), they will all have web interfaces, and they are all designed to share your data in various ways.

While they all work mainly the same, OMV is Debian-based IIRC (while the other 2 use FreeBSD for native ZFS) and probably has the edge is ease-of-use.

You can try them all out in VMs quite easily.

You should be able to install all of these to a SSD if you prefer (as opposed to a flash drive). I can't be certain of unRaid, but I have installed Nas4Free, FreeNas, and OMV directly to SSDs.

 

[Anteaus]

I would think that is because unRaid is more of a FS/storage tech than a NAS/file server tech. Their core product is the unRAID tech itself. The NAS-like front-end is just to help sell product, but probably not their main focus. Or at least, that is how I always viewed it.



Based on this, you might want to consider a NAS frontend, like FreeNAS, NAS4Free, or OpenMediaVault. You shouldn't need RAID for any these (just mount your individual drives), they will all have web interfaces, and they are all designed to share your data in various ways.

While they all work mainly the same, OMV is Debian-based IIRC (while the other 2 use FreeBSD for native ZFS) and probably has the edge is ease-of-use.

You can try them all out in VMs quite easily.

You should be able to install all of these to a SSD if you prefer (as opposed to a flash drive). I can't be certain of unRaid, but I have installed Nas4Free, FreeNas, and OMV directly to SSDs.

Thanks for the advice. I'll give FreeNAS another look.

 

[Anteaus]

After taking a look at FreeNAS, there is a question about RAM needs with ZFS. My server has 8GB which is fine, yet there is a general rule of 1GB of ram for every 1TB of storage space. Assuming I'm keeping to a single volume per drive and disable parity, do my memory needs reduce in spite of using ZFS? It seems that the memory needs are primarily driven by the use of parity.

I'd prefer to use EXT4, but it doesn't look like it's an option with FreeNAS.

 

[Jovec]

OpenMediaVault definitely allows the mounting of single EXT4 disks.

As to FreeNAS ram, you shouldn't have any issue. I think the ZFS RAM "rule" is more for heavy use situations. Serving home media and documents shouldn't be an issue.

 

[Anteaus]

OpenMediaVault definitely allows the mounting of single EXT4 disks.

As to FreeNAS ram, you shouldn't have any issue. I think the ZFS RAM "rule" is more for heavy use situations. Serving home media and documents shouldn't be an issue.

I think I'm probably just going to stay with Debian SMB where I'm comfortable. I love the idea of FreeNAS/Unraid on paper, but I'm wary of committing to setups that limit my ability to move drives around due to changes in configuration or OS. Also, since I don't want to span drives, using ZFS is overkill. ZFS has huge advantages in certain scenarios, but for my usage the advantage would be marginal at best since I don't want to use a parity or cache drive.

For my purposes, Ext4 is a better option for various reasons. That said, if FreeNAS offered Ext4 for single drive volumes as an alternative to ZFS, I would use it in a second.

Thank you to everyone who offered information.