WWYD - Trouble choosing ZFS server or NAS

S

Surly73

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
1,782
Hi:

I'm looking for some advice concerning my specific situation for NAS/server. To be frank, I'm in the middle of some nasty family stuff - I don't have a lot of time or money to devote to home IT. Nevertheless I have important data needs and I need to do something immediately to repair some problems.

For decades I've had a linux server at home doing all kinds of things running ancient, cast-off hardware but I'm doing less and less on it. I still need NAS, backups, permanent mail folder archives (currently doing normal UNIX mail in my home directory but I'm considering IMAP folders), syslogging and a few other odds and ends - printing, DLNA/UPnP.

My existing server has suffered a number of simultaneous hardware failures and is hard down. There is a rebate + sale on at a local store and I have two 3TB WD REDs on the shelf. They are unopened and still in the return window while I try to make up my mind what to do.

Facts:

  • My NAS needs are not huge but I would like good gigabit LAN performance
  • I want simple, power efficient, compact and fairly quiet
  • cheap, or at least cost-efficient to build (I am in Canada)
  • simplistic "disaster" scenarios - I'm not a fan of proprietary stuff and would really like if you could just connect the surviving half of a mirror to another PC to copy if something happens to your main device
  • I like relatively hands-off. I no longer get enjoyment from patching, updating, upgrading distro major releases...
  • I like the idea of ZFS
  • My favourite NAS of the moment is Synology DS213j or DS213.
  • My favourite Linux distro is ubuntu (alternate install w/ no graphics), though I'm thinking about Arch.

I am having trouble deciding whether to resurrect the idea of a linux server, or just get a NAS appliance. I've been doing some back reading here. Some thoughts in my head:

1/ with a server I have flexibility to customize, add new software, create backup schemes to my liking and run ZFS. I can use any disks and there are many recovery scenarios. Everything is "open" and I can find a way to access stored data no matter what happens.

2/ Would I run a linux distro and add NAS functionality, or do I run a NAS distro and hope that I can get a CLI and add/reconfig packages if required?

3/ A server could be cheaper than a NAS box but not if I go buy retail. I don't have time (either spare time or calendar time to wait to restore the functionality I need) to "watch craigslist" for that perfect niche system. I've read a little about those HP Proliant mini-servers and such things which might have a nice power/noise footprint.

4/ I worry about being able to use "old" hardware with 3TB advanced format SATA drives and GPT. My current (dead) server is an Athlon XP2600+ on Gigabyte GA-7NNXP (all PATA storage). Next in line on hand is a P4C800 Deluxe w/ 3.0GHz P4. I'm not sure that ANY of them could access the new drives fully. If they can access them, what about booting from them? Again, I want simplicity, not a showpiece for the [H] storage gallery. I don't really want two more spindles just for mirrored boot/OS. I've read howtos on running rootfs from ZFS, but that seems a lot less "idiot proof" when things go wrong and doesn't apply cleanly to all distros (I've been using ubuntu LTS). I could use ZFS on partitions (I think) and boot from smaller partitions on the reds if the BIOS supports it, but my reading indicates ZFS is better on raw disks. Been thinking about running with USB sticks for boot/OS but I'm not sold on that yet.

5/ What happens down the road when an appliance NAS starts to flake out? PC hardware allows expansion, swapping components, cases, power supplies etc... and retaining access to your data while it evolves.

6/ The Synology units, including their addons, seem pretty cool and well thought out. As long as they "do" everything I need then maybe it'll be OK. Anyone know if they will power down idle external drives connected for daily backups?

There are a bunch of pros to building a ZFS server, but if I need to start with all new components in order to use 3TB drives + a snazzy case to reduce the size then the affordability might be out the window.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Get a Synology for storage, then run all other stuff on a Raspberry Pi if it has enough juice for your tasks? You could even boot the Pi by having only kernel on SD card and root fs on the NAS. Would be power efficient at least. You can get 2 Pis for <$100, one for use, one as a backup.
 
+1 Synology. I would get a +version if you can afford it. They are super quiet, super reliable, and while easy to use, contain tons of features. It runs linux, FYI.
 
A couple of follow up questions have come to mind for those familiar hands on with Synology...

1/ what do you see if you connect a drive used as external backup on the NAS to a Windows system? Can you dig into incrementals or differentials and restore a given version of a file completely offline from the NAS? How well do built in backups manage space, incrementals etc...? (Or don't they?)

2/ if I go NAS, I also have to pony up for something completely new for daily backups. An external drive of sufficient size plus a chassis. I know you can use tools like hdparm to set disk idle spin downs but they don't persist through power cycles. Will the NAS power down an external spindle used once per day for backups or are there any good solutions I'm overlooking to reduce power and heat?

3/ any solution for monitoring a UPS or is it a non-issue? Google gives much older stuff about DS209s and apcupsd

I think the + versions aren't in the budget right now.

Thanks!
 
Surly73 said:
1/ what do you see if you connect a drive used as external backup on the NAS to a Windows system? Can you dig into incrementals or differentials and restore a given version of a file completely offline from the NAS? How well do built in backups manage space, incrementals etc...? (Or don't they?)
Click to expand...

It's a linux ext3 file system (assuming you use matching drives). If you have Windows set to read ext3, you will see the files just as the Synology sees them. You can restore, with any linux system. Synology has a hybrid RAID system (for variable sized drives), which I don't believe is viewable on Linux, but it may be. They don't manage space, it shouldn't be viewed as a true blue backup system. Yes it has backup features, but it should almost be looked at like a simple server with storage on it.

2/ if I go NAS, I also have to pony up for something completely new for daily backups. An external drive of sufficient size plus a chassis. I know you can use tools like hdparm to set disk idle spin downs but they don't persist through power cycles. Will the NAS power down an external spindle used once per day for backups or are there any good solutions I'm overlooking to reduce power and heat?
Click to expand...

The NAS does spin down it's drives when not in use, I can't confirm if it will spin down a USB attached drive.

3/ any solution for monitoring a UPS or is it a non-issue? Google gives much older stuff about DS209s and apcupsd
Click to expand...

It has built in UPS support. Configurable with timing options as well. It uses apcupsd I believe.

I think the + versions aren't in the budget right now.
Click to expand...
You won't get gigabit throughput with the j versions. Just a warning. Make sure to check the performance charts on Synology's website for throughput of file copies. Only the + versions will saturate gigabit.
 
I don't even know where I'll be living a few months
Click to expand...

The inclusion of the personal issue in asking for NAS guidance is a little bizarre, but okay, and my advice is don't skimp on attorney and you won't be moving anywhere. Send the broad packing. I told my woman if she ever even THINKS about the d-word, her future has "suddenly turned black" and a team of attorneys armed to the teeth will lay her out and stretch her out like they did William Wallace in braveheart, going to town on her with the torq-o-matic until she's wailing like tarzan. Naturally, she didnt bat an eye.

Then you can make your NAS decision in peace without feeling rushed.
 
Last edited:
I really enjoy the flexibility of having a server. That's not to say I wouldn't run a good NAS (in fact it's probably pretty ideal to separate services from your storage), but if I could only have one, I would go with the server.

I also would probably recommend playing with Arch on your desktop. Ubuntu LTS, especially since you say you are comfortable with it, works just fine as a server OS. Arch is great for being on the bleeding edge of packages, but that's not really what I want from a server.
 
-Sn1PeR- said:
I really enjoy the flexibility of having a server. That's not to say I wouldn't run a good NAS (in fact it's probably pretty ideal to separate services from your storage), but if I could only have one, I would go with the server.

I also would probably recommend playing with Arch on your desktop. Ubuntu LTS, especially since you say you are comfortable with it, works just fine as a server OS. Arch is great for being on the bleeding edge of packages, but that's not really what I want from a server.
Click to expand...

another vote for server here. Mine started only slinging out files and has grown to do a rather lot more than that now.

though I would also say to get your life straightened out first so you have time to sit and think without feeling rushed or uncertian.
 
Phog said:
You won't get gigabit throughput with the j versions. Just a warning. Make sure to check the performance charts on Synology's website for throughput of file copies. Only the + versions will saturate gigabit.
Click to expand...

Couldn't see any links/ charts that prove/ confirm your state at Synology website. :confused:
Can you provide more info.?
 
I've read the whole thread and I would go too with a NAS. I'm mainly in the same situation as yours.

I have a server with storage in it. But I like to experiment. I have many image backup with all server features already configured. Sometimes, it just pop me the idea to test new things without being limited by virtualization.

A NAS segregates the services. My Samba share would now be into a dedicated little machine (NAS) completely OS-independent of my main system. That would be a lot better for me.

Synology NAS are really nice. I plan to buy a DS412+.

Sure, a server is necessary sometimes. You seems very interested by a server. But having storage on a dedicated NAS is a lot less stressful. Even more when this NAS has RAID option. That's another reason why I go into a 4-bay NAS : RAID 5.
 
ponky said:
Get a Synology for storage, then run all other stuff on a Raspberry Pi if it has enough juice for your tasks? You could even boot the Pi by having only kernel on SD card and root fs on the NAS. Would be power efficient at least. You can get 2 Pis for <$100, one for use, one as a backup.
Click to expand...

This is an interesting idea, I may adopt this. Not sure how much I'll even need a server for, but $35 and ultra low power is a pretty great option.

Phog said:
It's a linux ext3 file system (assuming you use matching drives). If you have Windows set to read ext3, you will see the files just as the Synology sees them. You can restore, with any linux system. Synology has a hybrid RAID system (for variable sized drives), which I don't believe is viewable on Linux, but it may be. They don't manage space, it shouldn't be viewed as a true blue backup system. Yes it has backup features, but it should almost be looked at like a simple server with storage on it.
Click to expand...

Thanks for taking the time to hit a bunch of my question. I'm not sure if we're on the same page. It sounds to me like you're describing what the drives in array look like if they are removed. I'm curious what Synology does with the external USB/eSATA backup drive when you configure a backup schedule.

One of the things that makes me nervous about an appliance is what if the main board flames out after a couple of years, or maybe takes a disk with it. Hopefully it doesn't send a power surge and take out the external backup drive too. Presuming it doesn't what happens if I connect the external backup drive to another PC? Can I go in and pick individual files, or an individual file as it appeared "four days ago" for instance?

The NAS does spin down it's drives when not in use, I can't confirm if it will spin down a USB attached drive.
Click to expand...

Can anyone on the thread comment? I could use significantly less expensive "pre-wrapped" external drives if I knew they wouldn't be spinning 7x24 making heat that needs to be managed.

It has built in UPS support. Configurable with timing options as well. It uses apcupsd I believe.
Click to expand...

Right now my server is an apcupsd master for a SmartUPS which connects via DB-9 RS232 and powers a number of devices including my win7 workstation a distance away. I'll have to figure out something new because the RS-232 is going to be a problem. If I could access the apcupsd.conf I know that I could make it a slave of another master if need be to ensure proper shutdown.

(As an aside, I hate when a "simple" upgrade becomes a cascading one. disks -> NAS -> new backup drive -> new UPS -> etc...)

You won't get gigabit throughput with the j versions. Just a warning. Make sure to check the performance charts on Synology's website for throughput of file copies. Only the + versions will saturate gigabit.
Click to expand...

bmh.01 said:
http://www.synology.com/products/performance.php
Click to expand...

Seem like these say that all of them, including the j model, will send data to a windows box at gigabit wirespeed while experiencing more variability when writing to the disks. I don't see the charts discussing much in terms of RAID level chosen - you'd think that would result in a lot of model variability computing parity etc.... It doesn't seem like there's an order of magnitude difference between j, non-J and + at any rate.

I'll probably go with the mid-tier to get USB3 and some CPU/RAM headroom for adding modules. Too bad there's no ZFS...
 
Surly73 said:
One of the things that makes me nervous about an appliance is what if the main board flames out after a couple of years, or maybe takes a disk with it. Hopefully it doesn't send a power surge and take out the external backup drive too. Presuming it doesn't what happens if I connect the external backup drive to another PC? Can I go in and pick individual files, or an individual file as it appeared "four days ago" for instance?
Click to expand...

Yes, you will be able to see the external drive on any other device. Like I said, it will use FAT32 or EXT3 for the external drive, so any other systems that read those file systems can read that external USB. The Synology doesn't really have an onboard RAID card, so there isn't any dependence upon matching hardware.

Can anyone on the thread comment? I could use significantly less expensive "pre-wrapped" external drives if I knew they wouldn't be spinning 7x24 making heat that needs to be managed.
Click to expand...

I can't comment further, but honestly, the power draw isn't incredibly great for an external drive, and heat is probably the least of your worries if you're using any retail enclosure or all-in-one external hard drive.

Right now my server is an apcupsd master for a SmartUPS which connects via DB-9 RS232 and powers a number of devices including my win7 workstation a distance away. I'll have to figure out something new because the RS-232 is going to be a problem. If I could access the apcupsd.conf I know that I could make it a slave of another master if need be to ensure proper shutdown.
Click to expand...

The synology supports network shutdown commands, although you'll have to tweak the setup a bit manually, as natively it only supports it from other Diskstations out of the box.

Seem like these say that all of them, including the j model, will send data to a windows box at gigabit wirespeed while experiencing more variability when writing to the disks. I don't see the charts discussing much in terms of RAID level chosen - you'd think that would result in a lot of model variability computing parity etc.... It doesn't seem like there's an order of magnitude difference between j, non-J and + at any rate.
Click to expand...

Yes, typically (not always) they will read at gigabit speeds. I find RAID level to not affect read/writes in any way surprisingly. I've owned the DS411+ and currently own the DS1512+ with the expansion unit, and RAID6 is just as fast as RAID10 for large file transfer (in regard to IOPS, RAID10 is better). I find with the multitude of functionality the DSM (system software) provides, having the + model gives you much more flexibility. The CPU in the + versions is dual core and much faster than it's cheaper siblings. If you ever decide to use it for more than just hosting files (most people do) you will regret having the j version. Some of the really cool features of DSM are limited to + versions (1080p transcoding, etc.)

I'll probably go with the mid-tier to get USB3 and some CPU/RAM headroom for adding modules. Too bad there's no ZFS...
Click to expand...

That's a good decision, just stay away from the J models.
 
Opened the 3TB Reds to start exercising them because no matter what I do I think they'll be part of the solution. Having trouble exercising them with P4-era hardware. The BIOS sees 800GB disks. A live linux sees proper 2.7TiB drives x2. Spinrite follows the BIOS so I don't think it will properly exercise the entire surface and it won't even start with both connected. If more than one is connected, DBAN fails to see any and exits immediately. With one connected DBAN works but has dismal performance (like DoD short would take 360+ hours estimated). Weird and frustrating. I'm thinking that the NAS should have an "exercise disk" function and just give them a work out before adding them to active storage. Maybe they have this function and I don't realize it.

Picked up a DS213 and 3TB external (on sale). Haven't opened the DS213 yet because I'm having a last minute "Synology or QNAP" debate with myself. Google results seem old or inconclusive (e.g. "both are great").
 
Haha. You are funny.

The Synology does a disk initialization when you setup a new array, might as well just use that.

Regardless, take a deep breath and just follow through. Exercising a drive beforehand seems a bit overzealous, but whatever floats your boat! I just crammed my 3TB's in straight from the packaging and they've been running strong for over a year.
 
Phog said:
Haha. You are funny.

The Synology does a disk initialization when you setup a new array, might as well just use that.

Regardless, take a deep breath and just follow through. Exercising a drive beforehand seems a bit overzealous, but whatever floats your boat! I just crammed my 3TB's in straight from the packaging and they've been running strong for over a year.
Click to expand...

Surprised to be accused here of going overboard because I wanted to write to the surface of the disks once before starting to build arrays considering that threads here are full of people buying each drive from a different vendor over the course of months to ensure they don't have two drives with the same date code, exercising with spinrite level 5 for a month before adding to their arrays etc... I might call that overzealous, myself.

If all of my other tools prove to be a pain, maybe I'll just tell hdparm to order a long DST of each disk and check the logs and move on.
 
Phog said:
The Synology does a disk initialization when you setup a new array, might as well just use that.
Click to expand...

I'm fairly certain this is what occurs during initialization (writes zeros to entire drive). I believe the initialization took about four days on my eight disk array.
 
+1 for Synology. Just bought DS1812+ which I haven't setup yet. Upgrading from Qnap TS-419PII (which is for sale).
 
Surly73 said:
Hi:

I'm looking for some advice concerning my specific situation for NAS/server. To be frank, I'm in the middle of some nasty family stuff - I don't have a lot of time or money to devote to home IT. Nevertheless I have important data needs and I need to do something immediately to repair some problems.

For decades I've had a linux server at home doing all kinds of things running ancient, cast-off hardware but I'm doing less and less on it. I still need NAS, backups, permanent mail folder archives (currently doing normal UNIX mail in my home directory but I'm considering IMAP folders), syslogging and a few other odds and ends - printing, DLNA/UPnP.

My existing server has suffered a number of simultaneous hardware failures and is hard down. There is a rebate + sale on at a local store and I have two 3TB WD REDs on the shelf. They are unopened and still in the return window while I try to make up my mind what to do.

Facts:

  • My NAS needs are not huge but I would like good gigabit LAN performance
  • I want simple, power efficient, compact and fairly quiet
  • cheap, or at least cost-efficient to build (I am in Canada)
  • simplistic "disaster" scenarios - I'm not a fan of proprietary stuff and would really like if you could just connect the surviving half of a mirror to another PC to copy if something happens to your main device
  • I like relatively hands-off. I no longer get enjoyment from patching, updating, upgrading distro major releases...
  • I like the idea of ZFS
  • My favourite NAS of the moment is Synology DS213j or DS213.
  • My favourite Linux distro is ubuntu (alternate install w/ no graphics), though I'm thinking about Arch.

I am having trouble deciding whether to resurrect the idea of a linux server, or just get a NAS appliance. I've been doing some back reading here. Some thoughts in my head:

1/ with a server I have flexibility to customize, add new software, create backup schemes to my liking and run ZFS. I can use any disks and there are many recovery scenarios. Everything is "open" and I can find a way to access stored data no matter what happens.

2/ Would I run a linux distro and add NAS functionality, or do I run a NAS distro and hope that I can get a CLI and add/reconfig packages if required?

3/ A server could be cheaper than a NAS box but not if I go buy retail. I don't have time (either spare time or calendar time to wait to restore the functionality I need) to "watch craigslist" for that perfect niche system. I've read a little about those HP Proliant mini-servers and such things which might have a nice power/noise footprint.

4/ I worry about being able to use "old" hardware with 3TB advanced format SATA drives and GPT. My current (dead) server is an Athlon XP2600+ on Gigabyte GA-7NNXP (all PATA storage). Next in line on hand is a P4C800 Deluxe w/ 3.0GHz P4. I'm not sure that ANY of them could access the new drives fully. If they can access them, what about booting from them? Again, I want simplicity, not a showpiece for the [H] storage gallery. I don't really want two more spindles just for mirrored boot/OS. I've read howtos on running rootfs from ZFS, but that seems a lot less "idiot proof" when things go wrong and doesn't apply cleanly to all distros (I've been using ubuntu LTS). I could use ZFS on partitions (I think) and boot from smaller partitions on the reds if the BIOS supports it, but my reading indicates ZFS is better on raw disks. Been thinking about running with USB sticks for boot/OS but I'm not sold on that yet.

5/ What happens down the road when an appliance NAS starts to flake out? PC hardware allows expansion, swapping components, cases, power supplies etc... and retaining access to your data while it evolves.

6/ The Synology units, including their addons, seem pretty cool and well thought out. As long as they "do" everything I need then maybe it'll be OK. Anyone know if they will power down idle external drives connected for daily backups?

There are a bunch of pros to building a ZFS server, but if I need to start with all new components in order to use 3TB drives + a snazzy case to reduce the size then the affordability might be out the window.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...


I'm in Canada as well and can tell you our selection SUX vs what is available in the US.

With that said, i'm in the server camp. You want ZFS and say you use ubuntu. why not combine them and use zfs on linux?
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ZFS

I've got it running without any major issue.

Like you, i dont like propriatary and if you get a NAS this is probably what you will get.
A low end "computer" running a bastardized Linux and proprietary connectors and limited upgrade options.

While i understand you are tight for time, do a price/time compairison and see for yourself.

Throw Ubuntu server and zfs on linux on an old desktop (canadacomputers often has referbs for as low as 150) This should get you around 4 sata ports and 2gb ram for less then the Synology.

For power consumption, i have a DELL server in my basement with a kill-a-watt connected.

Its currently powering two drives and acting as our content filter/proxy/cache/tv server and killawatt states its using between 115 and 140 watts (depending on load). Typically i see it in the lower end.
 
Wanted to just add for the OP, the Synology DOES spin down external drives. I was browsing around the DSM control panel and found the option for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top