File Server Builder's Guide
by Zach Throckmorton on September 4, 2011 3:30 PM ESTConclusion
Home file servers can be enormously useful in a multi-system residence. Adding such a specialty system to a home network is easy, and certain file server operating systems are also very simple to set up and administer. A home file server is also an easy introduction to servers in general. Remember, the primary purpose of a home file server is storage - so rather than building around the CPU or GPU, build a home file server around the HDDs. Home file servers don't need powerful CPUs - instead focus on power savings and adequacy rather than raw processing muscle. While it's difficult - perhaps impossible - to know what HDD models are most reliable, choose your case carefully and take time managing cables so you can maintain optimal environments for your drives. Buy high-quality PSUs so your HDDs are supplied with clean power. And of course, back up your data!
"The files are in the computer. It's so simple!"
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
152 Comments
View All Comments
noxipoo - Sunday, September 4, 2011 - link
i'm looking for alternatives to drobo or the more expensive NAS devices so some raid card recommendations along with all the things that one needs would of been nice.bamsegrill - Sunday, September 4, 2011 - link
Yeah, some raidcard-recommendations would be nice.Rick83 - Sunday, September 4, 2011 - link
MY RAID card recommendation is a mainboard with as many SATA ports as possible, and screw the RAID card.For anything but high end database servers, it's a waste of money.
With desktop boards offering 10 to 12 SATA ports these days, you're unlikely to need additional hardware, if you chose the right board.
Otherwise, it's probably wisest to go with whatever chipset is best supported by your OS.
PCTC2 - Sunday, September 4, 2011 - link
But there's the fact that software RAID (which is what you're getting on your main board) is utterly inferior to those with dedicated RAID cards. And software RAIDs are extremely fickle when it comes to 5400 RPM desktop drives. Drives will drop out and will force you to rebuild... over 90 hours for 4 1.5TB drives. (I'm talking about Intel Storage Matrix on Windows/ mdadm on Linux).You could run FreeNAS/FreeBSD and use RAID-Z2. I've been running three systems for around 5 months now. One running Intel Storage Matrix on Windows, one running RAID-Z2 on FreeBSD, and one running on a CentOS box on a LSI2008-based controller. I have to say the hardware has been the most reliable, with the RAID-Z2 in a close second. As for the Intel softRAID, I've had to rebuild it twice in the 5 months (and don't say it's the drives because these drives used to be in the RAID-Z2 and they were fine. I guess Intel is a little more tight when it comes to drop-out time-outs).
A good RAID card with an older LSI1068E for RAID 5 is super cheap now. If you want a newer controller, you can still get one with an LSI2008 pretty cheap as well. If you want anything other than a giant RAID 0 stripe (such as RAID 5/6/10), then you should definitely go for a dedicated card or run BSD.
Rick83 - Sunday, September 4, 2011 - link
I've been using 5400 rpm disks and mdadm on linux for quite a while (6 years now?) and never had a problem, while having severly sufficient performance.If disks drop, that's the kernel saying that the device is gone, and could be jut a bad controller.
I've been on three boards and never had that kind of issue.
Windows is a bit more annoying.
Also, your rebuild time is over the top.
I've resynced much faster (2 hours for 400GB - so 10x faster than what you achieved. While also resyncing another array. Sounds like you may have a serious issue somewhere)
The compatibility advantage of software RAID outweighs any performance gain, unless you really need those extra 10 percent, or run extreme arrays (RAID-6 over 8 disks, and I might consider going with a dedicated card)
I think it might be the Intel/Windows combination that is hurting you - you might want to try the native windows RAID over the Intel Matrix stuff. Using that is the worst of both worlds, as you have the vendor lock in off a dedicated card and the slightly lower performance of a software solution.
Of course, you also mentioned mdadm, but I've never had a problem with that, with a bunch of different disks and controllers and boards.
I guess in two to three years, when I upgrade my machine again, I will have to look at a SATA controller card, or maybe sooner, should one of my IDE disks fail without me being able to replace it.
I think you may just have been unlucky with your issues, and can't agree with your assessment :-/
Flunk - Sunday, September 4, 2011 - link
I agree, I've used the Windows soft raid feature a lot and it trumps even hardware raid for ease of use because if your raid controller dies you can just put your drives in any windows system and get your data off. You don't need to find another identical controller. Performance is similar to matrix raid, good enough for a file server.vol7ron - Monday, September 5, 2011 - link
Wouldn't a RAID card be limited to the PCI bus anyhow? I would suspect you'd want the full speed that the SATA ports are capable ofvol7ron - Monday, September 5, 2011 - link
Even with 5400RPM drives, if you have a lot of data you're copying/transfering, you could probably saturate the full bandwidth, right?Rick83 - Monday, September 5, 2011 - link
PCI is wide enough to support gigabit ethernet, so if you don't have too many devices on the bus, you'll be fine until you have to build a RAID array.With PCI-X and PCIe these limitations are no longer of relevance.
Jaybus - Monday, September 5, 2011 - link
There are plenty of PCI-E x4 and x8 RAID cards.