Server and NAS Setup Suggestions

[razor2025]

I'm planning on setting up a Sever 2003 AD network at home. The goal is:

1. Make file sharing more streamlined. I want media files to be at a single source.
2. Make backups for important file (work, photos). I'm ambivalent over media files, since they hold fleeting values and are not critical.
3. Make power consumption lower.

My current plan is to have 2 servers:

1 - Server 2003 AD running on a Shuttle KPC box. I plan on installing E2160 with 2GB RAM. It will have 80GB OS Drive and 250GB Data Drive. The data drive will hold all of my important files and that will get backed up to a external 250GB drive (on a daily basis).

2 - NAS running on my old Antec mid-tower case. I'm not really sure what hardware I need for this one. I would like to get 1-2x 1TB drive for now, but have the ability to add more later without destroying the file system in place. It will hold the media files and backup of the Server 2003 data drive (once every friday, will only hold 2 weeks).

The servers will be hooked up to a gigabit switch. The house is served by a regular 11G wireless router running DD-WRT.

Any advice / suggestion would be great. I want to keep the total budget to be $800-1000 tops. One concern I can already come up with, is how reliable is the Shuttle KPC. I've had a Shuttle SN27P for 6-7 months now, and it works well, but replacing anything in Shuttle boxes are pain and expensive.

 

[Winterpool]

How hot do those Shuttle boxes get? That's my primary worry about tiny form-factor systems running real cpus and multiple drives. Is space such a concern for you? Otherwise, why do you feel attracted to the KPC?

If I were you, I'd put 'all of my important files' on the NAS you're building, not in the tiny KPC.

Never quite sure where one draws the line between 'NAS' and a file server. NAS devices are generally supposed to be prebuilt 'applicances', I suppose. I plan to build a new server in the next few weeks, but it will actually run server apps (eg Microsoft SharePoint) and virtual machines, so I need at least an Athlon X2. Otherwise almost any cpu and, say, 512 MB memory will be sufficient (but make sure you've Gigabit network adapter in the NAS). My primary file servers run on Pentium III 866 MHz and an Athlon XP 2500+.

Do you plan to run RAID eventually in your NAS? I'm not sure what you mean by adding more drives 'without destroying the file system in place'. More drives / partitions will show up as more drive letters on the NAS, which you'll have to share on your network (through SMB, etc). Or do you plan to use something like Microsoft's DFS?

Appliance and cheapo NAS systems generally run some form of Linux. Most modern Linux distros will do SMB file-sharing through Samba and even basic Active Directory authentication (qv Likewise Open). Of course if you've a spare Windows disc or want to spend $100+, you could run Windows Server instead.

To minimise power, use low-power cpu and chipset, integrated graphics, and a high-efficiency power supply. This for me is the great appeal of an AMD 780G board with, say, an Athlon X2 4850e. I'm going to power them with an Antec EarthWatts power supply (rated 80+ efficiency). Pre-P4 cpus (like my PIII) also use very little power but of course are much less capable and do not have low-power states available to modern cpus.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Why 2 servers? One dual-core should be able to run AD and serve files without breaking a sweat.

I realize you're splitting your data into "media" and "stuff to keep" but how much do you have of each?

There's no reason why you couldn't have 2 separate "media" and "stuff to keep" HD arrays in the big case, or go with 1 x RAID5 and both have some protection against disk failure.

 

[razor2025]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Why 2 servers? One dual-core should be able to run AD and serve files without breaking a sweat.

I realize you're splitting your data into "media" and "stuff to keep" but how much do you have of each?

There's no reason why you couldn't have 2 separate "media" and "stuff to keep" HD arrays in the big case, or go with 1 x RAID5 and both have some protection against disk failure.

Is it possible to add drives in Windows 2003 without having to format the file structure? I thought the big positive of NAS was ability to keep adding drives to existing file system, without having to destroy it to accompany the new one. What I mean is that, when I add new hard drives to the NAS/Server, I want them all mapped to a single drive letter, instead of having multiple letter/partitions. This would be a moot point, if Windows 2003 can somehow organize it all without having to JBOD or something similar.

 

[DaveSimmons]

For media, you're talking about using linux's Logical Volume Manager to be able to map new disks to new folders on one logical drive.

I haven't checked whether Window's Dynamic Disk support would let you do this with a set of disks for media files but it might. Then your Server 2003 could include a media array and a single disk for other files.

You could buy one 320 - 500 GB drive and partition it as C: (OS) and D: ("files you care about") to save a little power and a drive slot. Then the mass of other drives would be one dynamic disk.

 

[razor2025]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
For media, you're talking about using linux's Logical Volume Manager to be able to map new disks to new folders on one logical drive.

I haven't checked whether Window's Dynamic Disk support would let you do this with a set of disks for media files but it might. Then your Server 2003 could include a media array and a single disk for other files.

You could buy one 320 - 500 GB drive and partition it as C: (OS) and D: ("files you care about") to save a little power and a drive slot. Then the mass of other drives would be one dynamic disk.

Yup, LVM was what I was thinking about. I'll look into the dynamic disk.

 

[Winterpool]

I'm still not sure what you mean by 'file system'. On the one hand we have the logical disk or partiton as it appears to the actual computer that hosts the drives (the server). On the other we have how it appears, on a network, to client systems (let's call it the share).

Does it matter to you if the drive letters are minimised on the server as opposed to on the client? There are ways to minimise 'shares' that will appear to the client, even if there are actually more drives (and letters) on the server.

Windows Dynamic Disk will let you combine hard disks over time into a single 'drive', but that seems rather risky to me. And you won't be running RAID? By the way, RAID (well the usual RAID 1, 5, etc) isn't backup. It's more about uptime than backup. If you delete data that you later realise you shouldn't have done, then it's gone. RAID protects you from some physical problems (disk failure), but that's not the only or even most important source of data loss. I've lost far more data to accidental deletion or corruption than I have to pure drive failure. RAID won't protect you if a virus, intruder, or even one's own overaggressive housekeeping deletes or changes a file.

 

[razor2025]

Originally posted by: Winterpool
I'm still not sure what you mean by 'file system'. On the one hand we have the logical disk or partiton as it appears to the actual computer that hosts the drives (the server). On the other we have how it appears, on a network, to client systems (let's call it the share).

Does it matter to you if the drive letters are minimised on the server as opposed to on the client? There are ways to minimise 'shares' that will appear to the client, even if there are actually more drives (and letters) on the server.

Windows Dynamic Disk will let you combine hard disks over time into a single 'drive', but that seems rather risky to me. And you won't be running RAID? By the way, RAID (well the usual RAID 1, 5, etc) isn't backup. It's more about uptime than backup. If you delete data that you later realise you shouldn't have done, then it's gone. RAID protects you from some physical problems (disk failure), but that's not the only or even most important source of data loss. I've lost far more data to accidental deletion or corruption than I have to pure drive failure. RAID won't protect you if a virus, intruder, or even one's own overaggressive housekeeping deletes or changes a file.

I don't think I will be doing any RAID, as redundancy isn't what I'm aiming for. As for data recovery, that's why my original plan is to run two servers. The AD server will be running daily back up, while NAS will back up once every week. I'll only be backing up work documents, pictures I've taken, and music folder. I don't think they'll amount to more than ~200-300GB at most. I also want alot of storage for videos and movies I rip, but since those aren't really valuable to me, I think I'm fine putting them into a Dynamic Disk array.

 

[JackMDS]

On the type of arrangement that Windows Home Server (WHS) works with (WHS is a subset of Windows 2003 without AD and DM that are useless in small home networks) you can add new HD to join the single Map system (\\WHS\) without touching the old drive.

 

[razor2025]

* An update:

I've speced out a machine for the purpose:

Reusing old Antec SLK3000B case
Antec Trio 430 watt PSU - $10 AR
Reusing old Corsair XMS2 2GB DDR2
Intel G33 ATX motherboard - $100
Intel E1200 CPU - $50
Highpoint Rocketraid 2310 x2 (one spare) - $280

Price without drives: $440

As for drives, I'm still debating if I should go for broke. I'm either going to get 2-4 x of 1TB WD GP or 750GB Seagate 11's

What do you guys think?

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: razor2025
I also want alot of storage for videos and movies I rip, but since those aren't really valuable to me, I think I'm fine putting them into a Dynamic Disk array.

With Windows Dynamic Disks in Spanning mode, the failure of a single drive results in the loss of ALL files on the spanned array. Replacing the "bad" disk doesn't help. ALL the data is gone. But, as you noted, if the data isn't important, or if you have backups, it can be an acceptable tradeoff.

 

[razor2025]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger

Originally posted by: razor2025
I also want alot of storage for videos and movies I rip, but since those aren't really valuable to me, I think I'm fine putting them into a Dynamic Disk array.

With Windows Dynamic Disks in Spanning mode, the failure of a single drive results in the loss of ALL files on the spanned array. Replacing the "bad" disk doesn't help. ALL the data is gone. But, as you noted, if the data isn't important, or if you have backups, it can be an acceptable tradeoff.

Yeah, with that in mind, I think I will pony up the money and do a RAID 5.