10TB Local Web Server with more than 20 users

S

SLFCore

n00b
Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Messages
9
Greetings.
Since the number of computers are expanding at my home, I want to reduce Wireless Connectivity and increase Ethernet connection between computers.
I will be running a Server that supports 10 TB Storage.
Will a Custom PC be better or should I use a NAS connected to a web server?

I currently use a Linksys WRT160n router that supports only 4 ethernet connections.
Now I need at least 40 Ethernet connections. Will a Switch do?
Also I will be running Asterisk to support Telephones.

My web server will not function globally. Only in LAN.
And also, the web server will have a 250gb Wikipedia Dump that will deploy 10 times; and also a lot of video from KhanAcademy for knowledge base.
I am looking for something powerful which will be quiet and have less downtime.

I have checked out Newegg, eRacks, and many other websites. But I am confused with what to consider buying.

Here is what I need:-
  • A Local Web Server or a custom built PC for 10tb hard drive suppoty.
  • Router that can provide wired connection to about 40 users.
  • A Terminal so I can monitor the bandwidth usage.

Any help or directions to the product to buy will be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
 
Routers usually only have a small handful of ports; what you need is a switch, and it sounds like a 48-port one. Do you need 10/100, or gig, or 10G?

When dealing with large storage, usually a SAN or NAS is used; this way multiple servers can point to the same data (with a NAS) or you can have several separate volumes of data on the same SAN and have all servers attach to it, so you don't need a lot of HDD in your servers.
 
I suggest one of the folllowing:

Any 4 bay or greater QNAP NAS Preferably a TS-419 II or higher model.

A HP v1810-24G Switch

A HP v1410-24G Switch or a second v1810-24G


The QNAP NAS's can perform horizontal RAID expansion. Meaning you can keep upgrading your drives and once you get all your drives to a larger size your RAID array will auto expand to use all the available space. This is a million times better than having to remove/backup all the data in your datastore so you can upgrade your data-store.
I also believe the QNAP NAS has a built in Apache web server.

You can also monitor traffic to the webserver via the web console for the QNAP NAS.


I would choose a 5 drive version TS-459 II and use 4 3TB drives for now in RAID 5. That will give you approx 8TB of formatted drive space. Add another drive when you are ready to bring it to 11.2TB. Later on when 4 or 5 TB drives are available just swap one in at a time. Once the 5th drive is swapped the array will expand to fill the new drives. Drobo does something similar for file storage, but the performance is lower and the file format is proprietary, so if anything goes wrong you will never get your data back. The drobo does not have a built in webserver.

Most QNAP models over the 419 can saturate a gigabit line, so performance should not be an issue.


Lastly the upcoming windows storage server 2012 has some awesome technology that allows you to do something similar with their hybrid virtual RAID. Unfortunately it probably won't be available until 2013.

The V1810-24G is a managed switch, which will allow you to control and monitor or segregate your network traffic, the 1410 series is just a unmanaged switch.

Both have no fans so they are silent, both have next day lifetime replacement policies.

There are a pile of routers that will work.....like most on the market. What are your requirements? Right now it looks like almost anything will work.


If you don't mind the noise, there are plenty of 48 port managed gigabit switches on the market, but almost all managed 48 port gigabit switches have fans.
 
A switch for 40 connections isn't difficult to find, but if you're looking at using the disks extensively, a 48-port gigabit switch (or two 24's) may be considerably more expensive but probably worth it for throughput.

Upgrading to a router with gigabit capabilities may be a good option if going with the gigabit switch, otherwise it's the big bottleneck in this situation. Of course there are layer 3 gigabit switches for that too... but $$$ ;)

Another option is to run a PC with two VM's; one untangle/pfsense for routing and the other as Apache for web serving, and attach that PC directly to a SAN, and etherchannel the PC to a gigabit switch where everyone else connects to for maximum throughput. No need for external routers, just three appliances, the PC, the SAN and the switch, toss em in a closet/rack (as they will probably be slightly noisy)
 
Thanks for the replies. :)

The QNAP NAS sounds great. But just $470 without the hard drives seems to be a little expensive. I understand that cause of the design and the fact that it just consumes 26W of power. This is on my top list now on purchasing a NAS.

The HP 1410-24G Switch is more cheaper because I will be using WireShark on a Terminal connected to a Switch to analyze my Network Bandwidth.

And also, my connection layout will be like this:

WAN Ethernet --> Main Router --> 2x HP 1410-24G Switch --> Terminal, Servers, Clients, NAS.

Now I need the Main Router to provide wireless functionality also but I know there will be a heavy load on it since 2 switches will be connected to it.
Is there any way to eliminate the Router and have access to Internet by using a Switch directly from WAN Ethernet wire and also provide Wireless Connectivity?
Is there any better Network design for a similar layout?

By the way, most of the servers, clients and even the NAS will run linux so I doubt I will be using and Paid Software for the service.
 
Just use the router as a Wireless Access Point and get a layer 3 switch to do routing, or go with my PC virtualization idea :)

Code: 
Internet ---> PC VM running pfsense/untangle ---> PC VM running apache ---> Switch(es) ---> SAN
                                         -
                                          \
                                           -> Wireless Access Point

Code: 
Internet ---> Layer 3 Gigabit Switch ---> PC Running Apache
                                      -
                                        \
                                          -> SAN
                                          \
                                            -> Wireless Access point
 
Code: 
Internet ---> PC VM running pfsense/untangle ---> PC VM running apache ---> Switch(es) ---> SAN
                                         -
                                          \
                                           -> Wireless Access Point
Nice Layout and Very Cost Effective Setup.
But you see, I do not have a very powerful computer to perform a VM task.
Also, I do not want the computer to perform the function of a Router. I want it to run 24/7 and with the least noise.
Code: 
Internet ---> Layer 3 Gigabit Switch ---> PC Running Apache
                                      -
                                        \
                                          -> SAN
                                          \
                                            -> Wireless Access point
Ultimate Setup Layout for my situation. But the problem is the Layer 3 switch.
It just shoots up my budget. Do you have any recommendation for any cheap Layer 3 Switch. Cause right now, it seems like I will have to go for a 48 port one.
Any alternative to reduce cost?

Also some of the rooms are very far from the Main house. I need to use some sort of satellite dish to modulate my Wireless SSID signal. Do I just remove the antenna from the access point and just replace it with a satellite dish?
 
SLFCore said:
Code:
Nice Layout and Very Cost Effective Setup.
But you see, I do not have a very powerful computer to perform a VM task.
Also, I do not want the computer to perform the function of a Router. I want it to run 24/7 and with the least noise.
Code:
Ultimate Setup Layout for my situation. But the problem is the Layer 3 switch.
It just shoots up my budget. Do you have any recommendation for any cheap Layer 3 Switch. Cause right now, it seems like I will have to go for a 48 port one.
Any alternative to reduce cost?

Also some of the rooms are very far from the Main house. I need to use some sort of satellite dish to modulate my Wireless SSID signal. Do I just remove the antenna from the access point and just replace it with a satellite dish?
Click to expand...
\

I suppose I should ask what the budget is :) You can get a relatively inexpensive used Layer3 Switch, depends on what other features what want.

And yes, you can find wireless parabolic antennas that connect directly into the wireless antenna ports on your WAP pretty readily, they aren't too terribly expensive either

Nice Layout and Very Cost Effective Setup.
But you see, I do not have a very powerful computer to perform a VM task.
Also, I do not want the computer to perform the function of a Router. I want it to run 24/7 and with the least noise.
Click to expand...

A PC powerful enough to run virtualization with two VMs (routing and apache) is significantly less expensive than an L3 switch, and can operate much quieter than a switch with fans. The only addition I would suggest for the PC would be another 2 or 4 port Gigiabit Ethernet card (quite inexpensive, I suggest Intel)
 
Last edited:
But the problem is the PC will consume too much power. I'm looking for something energy efficient. Switches always consume less power than a Computer operating 24/7.

Might as well have to wait for the cash to flow in and then go for the Layer 3 Switch.
Looks like I will need a rack mount too.
Any recommendations for Racks to mount servers and thin clients or terminals to mount on to?
 
The 1400 does not support port mirroring. So how are you going to use wireshark?

That was why I was suggesting you use at least (1) V1810-24G.

There are lots of solutions but until we know your overall budget, I 'm hesitant to start listing equipment.
 
1) Buy a router such as a Mikrotik. Cheap and powerful. Can easily handle that many users. $~100ish for higher end one. You can monitor the bandwidth right within the router.
2) Buy a Unifi AP or multiple - $80 bucks each
3)As others suggested: HP Procurve 1810-24G (x2) or one 1810 and one 1410. ~ $1000 for 2 1810's (you can get them for 200ish a piece used.) or ~ 750 for one 1810 and one 1410.
4) Throw in Untangle for a web filter if you wish. ~ $300 - 500

For that stuff you are looking at under $1000 if you have Untangle in there as well for filtering. That's also assuming you'd buy the switches used.
 
I'm very sorry for not mentioning the budget earlier. Well, the total amount for all the equipment, cable and extra stuffs should not cross $2,500.

I was checking out the Unifi RocketDish Datasheet. They have a 120km coverage. Sounds awesome if my WiFi SSID is hidden. I can access it from very far too.

So whats on my top list is:-
  • QNAP NAS TS-419P II - $500
  • Unifi RocketDish - $350
  • Netgear 24port L3 Switch - $1,285
  • pfSense - As an Untangle alternative - $0
Total = $2,135

Now, I guess thats all I need. I didn't include the cable cost cause I have a lot of them already and also the hard-drives from my NAS.
Am I missing something? I know Untangle offers a lot more features but to me it just looks like pfSense can do the job for filtering and VPN.
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
The rocketdish is meant for outdoor point to point connections. Like from a WISP tower to a home over a long distance. They aren't used for internal wifi. You'll need a Unifi AP for that or something like a nanostation. I recommend Unifi though.

I still think you would be better off with a Procurve switch. What exact L3 features do you need? A 1810-24G is rock solid and highly recommended around here and everywhere. It can do VLANs, Port Mirroring, Trunking, etc. You'll save money as well. I'm not at all a fan of Netgear.

What about a router? Are you going to keep using your current one or is that what the L3 switch was for? If you were planning on using a switch to do your routing, that Netgear doesn't look like it will do NAT which is what you want.
 
Last edited:
Why are you using a L3 switch? Seems like a huge waste of money when a L2 switch and a router would work fine.
 
 
Thanks a lot!!!
You guys saved up a lot of money of ours.
Damn!! You guys are seriously [H]ardGawd.

Anyways, the L3 Netgear Switch was for both Router and LAN purpose.
Now even I feel that its a waste of money.

But I always keep thinking that connecting multiple switches to a router will overload it.
I don't know about that part.

Now I'm more likely to go for 1810G-24 switch, and the Unifi AP.

I'm still worried about my router being overloaded part. Cause I have already thrown away 2 Speedstreams routers cause they started behaving awkward.

Please let me know your experience.
By the way, I will be creating a VPN and Webfilter for the users that are connected to the Switch; so pfSense is where I'm going :)

Again, thanks a lot for the help. I really appreciate it.
Can't wait to post photos of the setup when its brought-up, set-up and finished.
 
You can't overload a router by adding more switches to it. You can push more traffic through the router, but if you push say 10 MB/s through one computer hooked up to the internal switch on the router or pushed 1 MB/s from 10 computers at once on switches connected to the router, it's the same thing. If your router is getting overloaded, you need to look at a beefier router.
 
I'm not sure the rocket dish is the right choice. I would post more background info and ask more questions.
 
Mackintire said:
I'm not sure the rocket dish is the right choice. I would post more background info and ask more questions.
Click to expand...
You are correct. I looked at the Unifi AP for more info. That is more appropriate for Wireless Access Point. :)

/usr/home said:
You can't overload a router by adding more switches to it. You can push more traffic through the router, but if you push say 10 MB/s through one computer hooked up to the internal switch on the router or pushed 1 MB/s from 10 computers at once on switches connected to the router, it's the same thing. If your router is getting overloaded, you need to look at a beefier router.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know it works like that way but whats strange is, my CPU Load Average meter shows 100% in the Router info page. And the memory is close to 90%.

The lesser the devices that connect to my Network, the lesser will be my CPU Load Average of the Router according to the config panel.
I just don't understand how this is happening. Now considering I will be connecting more switches to it; if it performs more awkward, I will have to ditch this to get a new Router too.

Any suggestion on Router that performs well even when the switches are connected to it?
I'm looking for something that never crashes for atleast a month.
 
My advice is:

Build a Dual core atom based PFsense box.

Use a motherboard with dual gigabit Intel nics onboard

Add a dual nic inter gigabit ethernet card

So you'll have 4 intel based gigabit ports total.

Add 4GB of Ram

This above should cover most possibilities.

I think that with 4GB install PFsense supports up to 2,000,0000 concurrent connections, which is more than most of us will ever use.
 
if you push say 10 MB/s through one computer hooked up to the internal switch on the router or pushed 1 MB/s from 10 computers at once... it's the same thing


wrong, wrong, wrong. If you look at any decent firewall, you'll see them rated in concurrent connections, among other things. The firewall has to keep track of each connection through it, from every device.

Open a DOS box on your PC, type in NETSTAT and hit enter. that shows you all the connections your PC is making across the network. Loading an average web page will mean about 8 connections. So one person downloading a file is far, far different than 50 people all surfing random sites.

That being said, most modern firewalls are more than fast enough for a typical small environment.
 
jjeff1 said:
if you push say 10 MB/s through one computer hooked up to the internal switch on the router or pushed 1 MB/s from 10 computers at once... it's the same thing


wrong, wrong, wrong. If you look at any decent firewall, you'll see them rated in concurrent connections, among other things. The firewall has to keep track of each connection through it, from every device.

Open a DOS box on your PC, type in NETSTAT and hit enter. that shows you all the connections your PC is making across the network. Loading an average web page will mean about 8 connections. So one person downloading a file is far, far different than 50 people all surfing random sites.

That being said, most modern firewalls are more than fast enough for a typical small environment.
Click to expand...

Obviously, he never really specified what he meant about his router issues. I thought he was referring to port count (which made no sense.) Anyways, that doesn't matter.

Just adding switch WON'T affect the router, I'm assuming you mean the switches are full of devices, then yes, they will slow down your router. I assumed you meant the switches in and of themselves.

How comfortable are you with networking? If you are fairly decent check out Mikrotik. If you something a bit more friendly, look into maybe something like a Zyxel or Sonicwall. As other have said, you can do the custom built PC thing too. It kinda all depends on your budget, features you need, and your networking abilities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top