[ale] [OT] Home nas

[Cameron Kilgore]

How's the power consumption on that ProLiant? Can you share the blog post
in question?

--Cameron <http://ghostfreeman.net>


On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 11:50 PM, <simontek at gmail.com> wrote:

> I have this:
> http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF05a/15351-15351-4237916-4237918-4237917-4248009.html?dnr=1I bought it new on newegg for $249 last year. I have been happy with it.
> You can put MS WHS, or FreeNAS, or a custom setup for it.
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816401170 I want to
> get this for it.
>
> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TM4QnTDSJLk/TvngeYiG4SI/AAAAAAAAALM/MM5xYev4Spw/s1600/IMG-20111206-00180.jpg
> The motherboard (from my blog) supports a mini-sas connector, internal usb
> port, 16x PCIe slot, you can use non-ecc with it if you want to. The
> motherboard slides out. its a nice little setup.
>
>
>
> On , Cameron Kilgore <ghostfreeman at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'd like to know more about performance with Atom, since I imagine using
> ZFS and FreeNAS can be CPU-intensive.
> >
> > I'm definitely not looking for more than 2 SATA plugs to do RAID 1
> mirroring, but i'll check out the Supermicro boards.
> >
> >
> > --Cameron
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 8:51 PM, Greg Clifton gccfof5 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > One problem with many of the Atom and Hudson A350 boards is a minimal
> number of SATA ports ( often only 2). If you are interested in an Atom
> board with more SATA ports, check out Supermicro's embedded product line,
> they have some with 4 or more SATA ports, but they ain't cheap. I recently
> came across a nano board that VIA is evidently producing in response to
> the Raspberry Pi and similar such products. It has 2 SATA ports and a quad
> core processor. Looks like it would make an adequate board to base a
> mirrored pair of drives off of, when it is available. I could envision such
> a device with a pair of hard drives "living" in the same case as a desktop
> system that might be your "main" computer. The article says the price is
> not yet set, but surely it will be less than $100:
> >
> http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/via-launches-tiny-quad-core-x86-epia-p910-board-2012097/
>
> >
> >
> >
> > I would love to hear anybody's experience that has used an Atom, or esp.
> an A350 board for a NAS box, because that is an idea that I have been
> kicking around.
> >
> >
> >
> > GC
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 4:59 PM, JD jdp at algoloma.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Backups don't need RAID. You want RAID on the main storage, if that is a
> >
> > requirement.
> >
> >
> >
> > For simple backups, buy a USB3 dock and connect it to a router with USB
> ports
> >
> > for storage.  Using a dock means he has "unlimited storage", just swap
> in a new
> >
> > 2TB hdd when the old one fills up.  If performance isn't good enough,
> newer
> >
> > routers should support USB3 soon.  Even some of those $50 media streaming
> >
> > devices will share USB HDD storage on the network.  I'm positive that a
> WD-TV
> >
> > Live HD does.  At 100base-tx, it is painfully slow compared to
> everything else
> >
> > that is GigE connected here.
> >
> >
> >
> > USB3 is not a good idea for anything other than backups or streaming
> media,
> >
> > IMHO. There has been a queuing issue with USB for years. It handles 1 or
> 2
> >
> > different requests at a time nicely, but not 5-20 like a full OS will
> make.
> >
> > There are eSATA docks for that, but then he needs to leave a PC on all
> the time.
> >
> > eSATA behaves just like internal disks. Same performance, same command
> set.
> >
> >
> >
> > I wouldn't completely knock out building a NAS-PC either.  The AMD APUs
> and Atom
> >
> > APUs can use 20W of power + however many HDDs are inside.  Last month if
> saw
> >
> > (and purchased) a Slickdeal E-350 MB+APU+case for $100. That's hard to
> beat on
> >
> > the price.  Drop in 1-2G of old RAM and an old HDD means a new system is
> ready
> >
> > and will be stingy on electricity.  I am not using it as a NAS, but
> might in the
> >
> > future.
> >
> >
> >
> > I have a home-built NAS with an external 4 disk array currently. That is
> primary
> >
> > storage running Linux software RAID.  To back it up, a USB3 WD external
> disk is
> >
> > used. Simple, cheap and effective.  If the backup disk fails - oh well.
>  That
> >
> > same disk array has been moved between systems and Linux installs
> multiple
> >
> > times. It was a non-event every time, extremely flexible.  Software RAID
> can be
> >
> > slower than HW-RAID.  The RAID5 here is much less speed than a single WD
> Black
> >
> > drive for writes. The OS disk cache is about 4G on that box, so the
> first 4G of
> >
> > transfer is always 65-75MB/s. Writing large files (10-22G HD recordings)
> to the
> >
> > single Black drive achieves about 40MB/s over the network, after the
> cache is
> >
> > full.  Going to the RAID5 storage might get 10MB/s after the cache is
> full.
> >
> > Same client, same server, same network, just the storage being written
> onto is
> >
> > different. Guess which drive I transfer new files onto over the network?
>  To be
> >
> > fair, the Black drives are fairly new and the disks in the array are
> 5.5+ yrs
> >
> > old.  I'm burning in replacement HDDs as I write this.
> >
> >
> >
> > With purchased NAS devices, much flexibility is gone. There are limits
> set by
> >
> > the maker. I guess that is what you are asking - about those limitations?
> >
> >
> >
> > Anyway, I hope these ideas are helpful to finding the best answer for
> his needs.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 09/16/2012 12:56 PM, John Anderson wrote:
> >
> > > I guess the issues other than the basic one of price would be:
> >
> > > reliablility.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > raid 1
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Ability to pop a drive out and read it if the unit fries. Are there
> >
> > > systems with software versus hardware raid? My understanding is that
> >
> > > software is easier to recover if the hardware fails.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Transfer speed is probably not an issue. This is more for the first
> >
> > > layer of backup for multiple pc's in the household. It probably won't
> be
> >
> > > getting hammered on a regular basis.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > On 09/16/2012 12:39 PM, JD wrote:
> >
> > >> On 09/16/2012 12:02 PM, John Anderson wrote:
> >
> > >>> Any recommendations/cautions about picking up a home nas? It's for my
> >
> > >>> brother in law so he probably won't want a re-purposed PC. Looking to
> >
> > >>> spend
> > >> You usually get what you pay for.
> >
> > >> http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/nas/nas-charts/view will get you (or
> him) started.
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >> There are many other caveats, but without requirements or use
> scenarios, I can't
> >
> > >> begin to make any suggestions.
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >> If he wants low price over all else, there are cheap 1 or 2 disk
> options without
> >
> > >> any advanced capabilities. However, these have pretty poor
> performance, but that
> >
> > >> may not be an issue.
> >
> > >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Ale mailing list
> >
> > Ale at ale.org
> >
> > http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> >
> > See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> >
> > http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Ale mailing list
> >
> > Ale at ale.org
> >
> > http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> >
> > See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> >
> > http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20120917/92dc8353/attachment.html