|
That's true as well, SMB2 v. SMB3 v. SMB4 makes differences, too. I run NFS over TCP on my vmxnet3 vNICs to even an E1000 vNIC and max out my throughput (disturbingly low for an 8-disk RAIDZ2 4TB zpool) at only about 300 MBps (about the same as from vmxnet3 to vmxnet3).
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:57 |
|
|
caberham posted:
I'm also interested in an answer to this
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
Generic Monk posted:random workloads would bring that avg down a bit but that's probably neither here nor there for a home media server type dealio reading/copying a video file is one big sequential read (ideally) so technically gigabit ethernet can add a few seconds to your file transfer but realistically it doesn't matter and isn't relevant for streaming caberham posted:Man transferring movies between HDD's over Gbe is slow. Any one have recommendations to speed up transfer? Would it benefit to transfer between SSD's over the network and then of to the zpool of HDD? Buy 10gbe? The netgear switch is only 768 and I guess in a few years will drop in half transfer speeds capped at 10-12 MB/s or lower? -> check if you're actually using gigabit ethernet on both ends and if your cables are complete dogshit and/or slow cat5 or below transfer speeds capped at 20-24 MB/s? -> is your hard drive connected via usb2? transfer speeds capped at 100-120MB/s? -> gigabit ethernet working as intended, the only way to get meaningfully faster transfer is rewiring everything for 10gbit ethernet for $texas (plus SSDs because normal hard drives top out at 150MB/s or so), or having an external SSD you physically plug into your media pc e: also lol my netgear gigabit ethernet switch is €35, for anything in the hundreds i'd want the thing to either have dozens of ports or be gold plated suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Jan 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:46
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Thanks for the advice guys, from now on I will download to the location properly. I'm starting to use the synology download assistant on Chrome on my older 214+ but I can't specify different folder locations and can only designate one location. Anyone have any better alternatives?blowfish posted:transfer speeds capped at 20-24 MB/s? -> is your hard drive connected via usb2? Yeah it's around 25.2 MB/S - I'm transferring from my old computer SATA to my older synology 214+ It's connected through my R7000 router Gbe. The transfer is just mapped drive windows file copy My speed test  What am I doing wrong  caberham fucked around with this message at 03:00 on Jan 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
caberham posted:Thanks for the advice guys, from now on I will download to the location properly. I'm starting to use the synology download assistant on Chrome on my older 214+ but I can't specify different folder locations and can only designate one location. Anyone have any better alternatives? Thinking that your WAN speed has anything to do with your LAN speed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
8-bit Miniboss posted:Thinking that your WAN speed has anything to do with your LAN speed. It's more like waste of potential If my WAN Speed is blazingly fast, I should set up my infrastructure better
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
I'm hoping to pick up a 2-bay USB 3.0 RAID-1 enclosure. It won't get a huge amount of use, but I want a little bit of fault tolerance for my parents, who are moving several hours away. It'll get hooked up to a Mac Mini server for use as file/backup/caching server storage. I'm mainly going for reliability here - throughput is nice but is not necessarily the deciding factor here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
caberham posted:It's more like waste of potential Yes. Upgrading your existing setup to 10gbit ethernet won't change anything unless the problem is something really stupid like an improperly plugged-in cable. You should check the transfer speed of the hard drive within your old computer (sata1? ide? some awful internal usb contraption that shouldn't exist in a sane computer?). Then check transfer speeds between computer/router and NAS/router (some routers have only a few real gigabit ethernet ports and additional shittier ports).
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
I'm currently in the planning stages of a FreeNAS build (~24tb usable, RAID-Z2) to replacing my aging Synology, and I'm stumped on which CPU I should get. It won't be doing anything other than serving up files and MySQL. The bulk of my storage are my bluray remuxes and photography. I was looking at an i3-4160, but that seems absolutely overkill for what I need. Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
Slowhanded posted:I'm currently in the planning stages of a FreeNAS build (~24tb usable, RAID-Z2) to replacing my aging Synology, and I'm stumped on which CPU I should get. It won't be doing anything other than serving up files and MySQL. The bulk of my storage are my bluray remuxes and photography. I was looking at an i3-4160, but that seems absolutely overkill for what I need. Thoughts? How much will you save by going smaller, and how much will it suck when you change your mind and want the NAS to handle some additional task.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
thebigcow posted:How much will you save by going smaller, and how much will it suck when you change your mind and want the NAS to handle some additional task. If you really don't want it to do anything hard, just get a Haswell celeron for $30. In case you discover you need more processing power you haven't wasted much money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
blowfish posted:If you really don't want it to do anything hard, just get a Haswell celeron for $30. In case you discover you need more processing power you haven't wasted much money. It's not so much wasting money on the CPU you upgrade, but the time in pulling the whole NAS apart, upgrading the CPU, and putting it back together. Time that could be saved in the long run by splurging a bit up front on a more expensive CPU.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
Slowhanded posted:I'm currently in the planning stages of a FreeNAS build (~24tb usable, RAID-Z2) to replacing my aging Synology, and I'm stumped on which CPU I should get. It won't be doing anything other than serving up files and MySQL. The bulk of my storage are my bluray remuxes and photography. I was looking at an i3-4160, but that seems absolutely overkill for what I need. Thoughts? Personally, when building a similarly spec'd FreeNAS box a couple months ago, I opted for a Xeon E3-1230 v3, which may have been a little overkill, but I can throw anything I want at it, transcode multiple streams at once if I want, and it has ECC support.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
I'm after a fairly basic fileserver or NAS setup. Not sure exactly what would be most suitable to my needs. I just need something to hold 2 hard drives and serve files as well as being able to download torrents on its own. Basically just needs to be able to serve 1080p video over gigabit comfortably and be configurable using a web interface via ethernet. Something cheap, reliable and low power usage. I currently have a Synology DS211j but there must be something wrong with it as it is super slow transferring files over ethernet (1-3 MB/s) but can easily reach 16 MB/s if I connect a USB hard drive directly to it and copy stuff to that. Been trying to roll back to a previous firmware as I'm not sure if that might help but I think I've bricked it. Unable to put any firmware onto it now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 06:57
|
|
|
The PC PARTS MEGA THREAD linked this in the OPhttp://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3671266&pagenumber=1 posted:
I got the SA XL NAS - The silverstone DS380 supports EIGHT 3.5 bays and two more 2* 2.5. I only loaded it with 6 * 4TB HGST One feature to remember is that the server motherboard has no onboard display. So you either buy an el-cheapo graphics card or do a headless install off a USB stick and remote login afterwards. Maybe even Serial In? In terms of hardware, anyone tried the new Pentium D's? Dual 10Gbe motherboards are starting to become more mainstream  I'm so tempted to buy another one and use this main as a backup mirror.
caberham fucked around with this message at 07:48 on Jan 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 07:45
|
|
|
Too bad the they are still very expensive..... And the Gigabyte boards have SFPs instead of copper 10gb IIRC. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 08:11
|
|
|
I'd like to build a setup with a Xeon-D 1520/1540 but they're a little spendy for me right now.. Very nice boards though, I have been using a supermicro with the 1540 at work and it's really slick. Barely even needs a fan.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 09:18
|
|
|
Ok who is this goon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSxzsfI_Mug
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 10:42
|
|
|
Vidaeus posted:I'm after a fairly basic fileserver or NAS setup. Not sure exactly what would be most suitable to my needs. I just need something to hold 2 hard drives and serve files as well as being able to download torrents on its own. Basically just needs to be able to serve 1080p video over gigabit comfortably and be configurable using a web interface via ethernet. Something cheap, reliable and low power usage. Check out the Lenovo TS140. Just add drives and a suitable OS, such as FreeNAS or XPEnology.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
I'm trying to figure out the best solution for my file server. The main use is as a media server and data backup for our other computers. My current configuration is below (it's an old gaming machine): - Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 - EVGA nForce 780i (6 sata ports, 2 of which support hardware raid) - 8gb RAM - Single 4tb drive - Antec Performance Plus case (its like 14 years old, but it's got tons of space for drives and it works fine) - Ubuntu running Emby for media My main issue is right now is I don't have anything backed up, and I'd rather not have my backup procedure be dragging and dropping poo poo to another drive. I know there has to be a better solution than this (some sort of Raid?), but I really don't have any idea on where to start. I know I'll have to buy more drives, but I'd like to keep the CPU/motherboard if possible. I'm also unsure how I will be able to keep all the data I have on my 4tb drive when I go to install FreeNAS or whatever. Currently I have Ubuntu and all my media on the same drive. I think I can resize an ext4 partition without having to wipe out the data? I also have an unused 1.5TB and a few older 500-750gb drives I could use for data migration if needed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
blk96gt posted:I'm trying to figure out the best solution for my file server. The main use is as a media server and data backup for our other computers. My current configuration is below (it's an old gaming machine): A few things. First, RAID is not for backup, they are different concepts. A backup should prevent data-loss from a localized disaster, like your server being dropped or house burning down. RAID will not solve that. RAID is more for minimizing downtime. A simple RAID-1 between your current 4tb and another should protect your from single drive failures and not require any further intervention from you. Second, I seriously doubt your motherboard actually does 'real' hardware RAID. It's a software RAID supported by the chipset. Third, you probably can't simply keep your drive if moving to FreeNAS, you'll have to do some data moving back and forth. However, considering you have a number of spare drives, you could look at something like Unraid or SnapRaid to take advantage of them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
Skandranon posted:A few things. First, RAID is not for backup, they are different concepts. A backup should prevent data-loss from a localized disaster, like your server being dropped or house burning down. RAID will not solve that. RAID is more for minimizing downtime. A simple RAID-1 between your current 4tb and another should protect your from single drive failures and not require any further intervention from you. Thanks! I started reading about SnapRaid and I think I know what I'm actually wanting to do now. 1) Drive pooling- I'm almost out of space on my 4tb drive, so I'd like to be able to add another drive and pool them together so the OS only sees it as one partition. 2) Data backup For 1, this seems easily doable, and makes it easier to expand storage capacity later on. There are a number of options it seems, but some quick searching turned up mergerfs and LVM. What I don't know is which one of these options is the better choice. Does anyone have an opinion on this? My plan will likely be to use a separate drive for the OS, and then pick up another 4tb drive for pooling. Do the drives have to be the same size/speed/etc, or does it matter? My understanding is it shouldn't matter, but I just want to make sure. For 2, I could use something like SnapRaid or just buy a NAS box to act as backup. Right now I'm leaning towards buying a NAS, but I'm open to better options for backup. Will something like this be the best option for what I'm wanting to achieve?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
blk96gt posted:Thanks! I started reading about SnapRaid and I think I know what I'm actually wanting to do now. Drive pooling will not give you any redundancy, which is the whole point of things like SnapRaid. To form the array, you need to have a dedicated Parity drive that is as large or larger than any other drive you want to use to hold data. After that, yes, you can use any combination of size/speed, though don't do something stupid like start adding USB drives. Again, RAID arrays are not backup. If you are talking about a separate NAS on the other side of the house, that is only a backup against the original server exploding, but does not protect against theft/fire. Plan your backup routine according the value you place on your data.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Skandranon posted:Drive pooling will not give you any redundancy, which is the whole point of things like SnapRaid. I understand drive pooling alone will not give me any redundancy. I thought that was clear in my response, but maybe I should have worded it better.. In my case, I'm not trying to back anything up outside the house. The last thing I will be thinking if my house explodes is "Gee, I'm sure glad I still have all my movies!" I'm wanting to know if the best way to expand storage and have backups (or redundancy, whatever) is to 1) pool some drives together using mergerfs and SnapRaid (or similar tool), or 2) pool a couple drives together to expand my storage capacity and then use a NAS for backup. I'm leaning towards the NAS since I will also be backing my desktop, laptop, work computer and the wife's laptop in addition to the media library. A NAS would also require less work on my end, although it would add a couple hundred bucks to the cost since I would have to buy a box. I was also asking for an opinion on the different drive pooling methods, but maybe that is a better question for the Linux thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
blk96gt posted:I understand drive pooling alone will not give me any redundancy. I thought that was clear in my response, but maybe I should have worded it better.. In my case, I'm not trying to back anything up outside the house. The last thing I will be thinking if my house explodes is "Gee, I'm sure glad I still have all my movies!" Sorry for harping on the backup thing, there are a lot of people here who ask questions and don't seem to really understand what they want. You seem to have a better idea, though I'm still a little fuzzy. Do you just want simple protection against a single drive failing? What are your current space requirements for now and in the future? What is the purpose of backing up to a NAS vs keeping it on your current setup? If you don't care about redundancy, you can just add more drives as you please to your current setup. If you want some regular synchronizing of some files to different drives, you could just set up some nightly jobs to do that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
Skandranon posted:Sorry for harping on the backup thing, there are a lot of people here who ask questions and don't seem to really understand what they want. You seem to have a better idea, though I'm still a little fuzzy. Do you just want simple protection against a single drive failing? What are your current space requirements for now and in the future? What is the purpose of backing up to a NAS vs keeping it on your current setup? If you don't care about redundancy, you can just add more drives as you please to your current setup. If you want some regular synchronizing of some files to different drives, you could just set up some nightly jobs to do that. Sorry about being confusing, I knew very little about NAS, drive pooling, or RAID until I started looking into this stuff this morning. I guess the simple way to put it is I would like to go from near zero redundancy/backup to having a full backup of everything in a central location. Whether that is done with my current machine using a custom drive pooling/raid/NAS setup or using a turn-key NAS like a Synology I have no idea. I like the simplicity of just buying a NAS, but I didn't want to rule out any other options. I just feel like I should have my movies/media backed up somewhere that's not on the same machine, although I could be wrong. Current space requirements right now are ~4-5tb, and I could see that easily expanding to 7-8tb as I add to my media collection.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
blk96gt posted:Sorry about being confusing, I knew very little about NAS, drive pooling, or RAID until I started looking into this stuff this morning. The pooling and backup are really two different solutions. To keep things simple, I would start small. Add your spare drives to your current box and pool them with something that does linux pooling (not my area). Then get a NAS and put a 4tb drive in it, and set up some scripts to rsync the files you want to it. Don't need to fret much about RAID yet. You can continue to add drives to both, and make further decisions as to how you want that to work as you go. I'd get at least a 4 bay NAS so that you have some upgrade options in the future.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
It sounds like you are still conflating redundancy and backup. You can have a NAS with a RAID array to handle redundancy. If one (or two, potentially) drives fail, no worries, you have redundancy built in. Replace the drives, keep on trucking. A NAS will not handle backup. If you have your NAS share mapped to a drive letter on your workstation, and then you download cryptolocker, all the redundancy in the world won't help you get your data back. Similarly, if someone drives a bulldozer through your house, you will have lost all your data. If you want redundancy (you should, its cheap!), a NAS will do fine. If you want backup (you should, it's important!), you will need either direct attached USB drives that are manually or automatically backed up and carried offsite or some cloud solution like Crashplan.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Happiness Commando posted:If you have your NAS share mapped to a drive letter on your workstation, and then you download cryptolocker, all the redundancy in the world won't help you get your data back. This. This right here is why you need true, scheduled, versioned backups.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
eightysixed posted:This. This right here is why you need true, scheduled, versioned backups. You should also probably not have write access to a large array, but have that under a restricted account.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
So just to make sure I have the terminology right, you guys are saying it's redundancy if my data is duplicated on a different set of drives on a different machine, but still in my house? And it's not a backup unless the data is offsite? Anyways, I think picking up a NAS is the right option. Now the question is, should I go with a Netgear ReadyNAS 104, Synology DS414j, or is there something better? I don't think it should matter, but I will be using this Windows, Linux, and OSX.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
blk96gt posted:So just to make sure I have the terminology right, you guys are saying it's redundancy if my data is duplicated on a different set of drives on a different machine, but still in my house? And it's not a backup unless the data is offsite? Redundancy is something that allows you to maintain service, uninterrupted, in the event of a drive failure of some sort. RAID is the classical way this is done, with RAID-1 being the simplest example. You have 2 equal drives, and data is duplicated to both disks as it is written. If either of them die, the array will still be available and data intact. You will get a warning that you should replace the failed drive to restore redundancy, but the array is still available in some way. It is really ONLY meant to survive 1 or more hard drive failures. A backup is something designed to survive MORE than a drive failure (cryptolocker, dropped computer, bulldozer, fire, nuclear bomb), and perhaps should require some kind of intervention to both create and restore. How it is implemented depends on what it is trying to mitigate. To be any better at mitigating disaster beyond a drive failure, it probably means moving the data offsite in some way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
To build on the above because I see it happen a lot - an offsite sync job isn't really a backup either (unless it's keeping snapshots or equivalent), it's more of a DR-type arrangement. Because if you remember you deleted a file the day after the sync completes then you're poo poo out of luck.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
I think we're getting trolled here, guys 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
Ok this is a really really stupid situation. I tried using imagewriter and it only generated a 388mb installation partition on my 16GB USB stick but there's a still a whole bunch of unused space. When I booted up the USB stick I didn't see any option to install into my usb stick. What am I doing wrong here? Thanks again guys!
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Is anyone running a Synology DS1813+ or 1815+ as a VMware datastore backend? What kind of workloads are you running on it? I'm thinking about picking up the 1813 because it's sub-1k, will take 8 drives, and I can team the NICs to 4gbps and then just not worry about storage for the next four or five years. This is for a home environment with infrequent heavy-disk usage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
I want to buy a 4-5 bay NAS. I don't really care if it's a synology, qnap, or if I build my own. What I want to do is have 2 physical network interfaces and set up one of those interfaces to be used for torrents only. It looks like Synology added a feature to set this up but I couldn't find a lot of information or documentation about it. Does anyone have a recommendation or tips to set something like this up?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
caberham posted:Ok this is a really really stupid situation. I tried using imagewriter and it only generated a 388mb installation partition on my 16GB USB stick but there's a still a whole bunch of unused space. When I booted up the USB stick I didn't see any option to install into my usb stick. What am I doing wrong here? Thanks again guys! Are you sure it's a real 16GB stick? There's a rash of counterfeit ones going around that report a large capacity, but only actually have a small amount of storage capacity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Skandranon posted:No port multiplying magic, it's just a SATA controller running on the PCI-Express bus like anything else. Is there some secret to getting motherboard SATA ports to detect multiple drives on a single port? I bought that eSATA bracket and have the same result; only the first drive on each cable is spun up and detected. So while the enclosure supports 4 drives per eSATA port, without the PCIe card, I can only use 1 drive per port. The text i'm reading on this stupid PCIe card has things like 'includes support for FIS based port multiplier switching which accesses multiple drives simultaneously'... would normal SATA controllers (or, the one in the motherboard of this stupid hp z220 sff) not support such voodoo? I'm really ready to give up on this thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:57 |
|
|
Ryaath posted:Is there some secret to getting motherboard SATA ports to detect multiple drives on a single port? I bought that eSATA bracket and have the same result; only the first drive on each cable is spun up and detected. So while the enclosure supports 4 drives per eSATA port, without the PCIe card, I can only use 1 drive per port. I do not think you CAN take a motherboards SATA port and connect more than one drive to it... if you could, it would have to be supported by the controller, and I doubt many motherboards would bother with a controller that did that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 02:27
|
|