Building a file server for a client... need advice.

[XeeN]

Hi all. I've been reading this forum for a while to see if any similar threads showed up, and I'll be doing more searches to see what others have done in the past. I'd like some advice.

A client of mine is a photographer who wants to increase his storage. He also wants to keep his data backed-up or safe with whatever would be the best option. He's thought about RAID 5 and I did some research into that and read here on the forums a bit, but don't know how the data is kept safe. I'm wondering if having drives mirrored would be safer, or if RAID 5 corrects some data corruption. I suppose that's one question.

The main point of this post is to figure out what the best options are for a file server.

1. I have no experience in Linux and would prefer to have the file server run Windows Server 2003 or just simple XP. Is there a dramatic improvement in using Windows Server instead of XP?

2. Data transfer method: would a gigabit LAN be the best option, or is there some fiber-optic option that's better?

3. CPU/Mobo/Memory needs: obviously a dual-P3 motherboard could work out but I'd prefer to get him on a Core Duo or something solid and a good motherboard (does he really need a "server" motherboard?). Should a file server have a motherboard take care of the RAID array handling, or is it best to get a Raid controller with a RAID-5 processor on board? What's the performance hit a CPU takes when handling all the RAID 5 stuff? As far as memory goes, I'd assume 1-2GB would be plenty, right?

4. Cases: by default I'll look at Lian-Li server cases, but if anyone has any suggestions for cases with great enclosures and expandability, please let me know. He doesn't need windows or anything in his case. It'll just have hard drives in it and it needs to be able to be built upon for a while now so he could have a lot of hard drives in there after a few years.

5. Best RAID & backup options: since his photographs are his business, would you suggest having mirrored hard drives rather than RAID 5? Is there a better option? Would RAID 5 still require him to do backups of the data to be safe? Would mirrored HDs eliminate the backup need?

That's all the questions I have for now! Thanks for your time spent helping me out with this one.

 

[Michael Daly]

A client of mine is a photographer who wants to increase his storage. He also wants to keep his data backed-up or safe with whatever would be the best option. He's thought about RAID 5 and I did some research into that and read here on the forums a bit, but don't know how the data is kept safe. I'm wondering if having drives mirrored would be safer, or if RAID 5 corrects some data corruption. I suppose that's one question.

RAID1 or 5 or 6 or whatever will increase reliability and up time, but for security, he'll need a good backup system - something that takes the data off the server and out of the building.

1. I have no experience in Linux and would prefer to have the file server run Windows Server 2003 or just simple XP. Is there a dramatic improvement in using Windows Server instead of XP?

There are servers and there are servers. If he's running a server for storage and will not have a lot of users banging on it, XP Pro should be fine (and cheaper). Linux is a better option for a server, but you'd have to consider the learning curve, unfamiliar programs/interface/etc.

2. Data transfer method: would a gigabit LAN be the best option, or is there some fiber-optic option that's better?

Gb LAN should be fine unless he's transferring lots of data a lot of the time. If he's the only user, he should see speeds matching direct access to a slowish disk drive.

3. CPU/Mobo/Memory needs: obviously a dual-P3 motherboard could work out but I'd prefer to get him on a Core Duo or something solid and a good motherboard (does he really need a "server" motherboard?). Should a file server have a motherboard take care of the RAID array handling, or is it best to get a Raid controller with a RAID-5 processor on board?

Again, if his load is low, even a single PIII will handle it. He'll need processing power only if he's running lots of users and lots of server apps. If it's truly for storage, it's a glorified external drive. If he's going to have several users and constant access, he'll need something with more power. You need to assess his demand.

4. Cases: by default I'll look at Lian-Li server cases,

There are a few "lots of drives" cases out there - towers with top to bottom drive bays. You won't need a "server" case per se.

5. Best RAID & backup options: since his photographs are his business, would you suggest having mirrored hard drives rather than RAID 5? Is there a better option? Would RAID 5 still require him to do backups of the data to be safe? Would mirrored HDs eliminate the backup need?

One big drive with a good backup strategy will be better than the fanciest RAID configuration and a poor backup strategy. RAID will improve his online availability but do nothing for security. Decide on what kind of backup he wants (tape, external drive, DVD etc) and then decide on what drive configuration. If the backup is good, base the drive config on price and availability rather than how high a RAID number you can get.

Consider as well getting the enterprise level drives. These are rated for continuous operation rather occasional as in a typical office desktop.

 

[unhappy_mage]

1. I have no experience in Linux and would prefer to have the file server run Windows Server 2003 or just simple XP. Is there a dramatic improvement in using Windows Server instead of XP?

Probably not. XP is restricted to 10 simultaneous clients IIRC.

2. Data transfer method: would a gigabit LAN be the best option, or is there some fiber-optic option that's better?

Gigabit lan is probably all you'd ever need for photos. Even uncompressed, an 8mp image is 8*10**6 * 3 = 24 MB, or a fifth of a second to transfer over gigE.

3. CPU/Mobo/Memory needs: obviously a dual-P3 motherboard could work out but I'd prefer to get him on a Core Duo or something solid and a good motherboard (does he really need a "server" motherboard?). Should a file server have a motherboard take care of the RAID array handling, or is it best to get a Raid controller with a RAID-5 processor on board? What's the performance hit a CPU takes when handling all the RAID 5 stuff? As far as memory goes, I'd assume 1-2GB would be plenty, right?

Pick something with ECC and an x4 slot or a PCI-X slot from newegg. Pick AMD if it's cheaper - you don't need the performance, even for softraid. As for raid card, the Highpoint 2320 or an Areca card are my standard recommendations. What performance goals are you trying to meet?

4. Cases: by default I'll look at Lian-Li server cases, but if anyone has any suggestions for cases with great enclosures and expandability, please let me know. He doesn't need windows or anything in his case. It'll just have hard drives in it and it needs to be able to be built upon for a while now so he could have a lot of hard drives in there after a few years.

The Coolermaster Stacker and Supermicro CSE-M35T cases are my suggestion. The enclosures are a bit loud, but 1) for photo work it doesn't matter as much as for audio, and 2) put the box in another room and it'll be fine.

5. Best RAID & backup options: since his photographs are his business, would you suggest having mirrored hard drives rather than RAID 5? Is there a better option? Would RAID 5 still require him to do backups of the data to be safe? Would mirrored HDs eliminate the backup need?

Raid 5 + offline (not plugged into anything!) backups. Get 2 750GB drives and rotate them, and move older stuff onto DVD.

I don't mean to be rude, but if you're in over your head here why not tell him so and point him to a good reseller who will support this kind of thing? Dell might be more expensive, but they probably have a bigger support division than you.

 

[Eickst]

RAID1 or 5 or 6 or whatever will increase reliability and up time, but for security, he'll need a good backup system - something that takes the data off the server and out of the building.



There are servers and there are servers. If he's running a server for storage and will not have a lot of users banging on it, XP Pro should be fine (and cheaper). Linux is a better option for a server, but you'd have to consider the learning curve, unfamiliar programs/interface/etc.



Gb LAN should be fine unless he's transferring lots of data a lot of the time. If he's the only user, he should see speeds matching direct access to a slowish disk drive.



Again, if his load is low, even a single PIII will handle it. He'll need processing power only if he's running lots of users and lots of server apps. If it's truly for storage, it's a glorified external drive. If he's going to have several users and constant access, he'll need something with more power. You need to assess his demand.



There are a few "lots of drives" cases out there - towers with top to bottom drive bays. You won't need a "server" case per se.



One big drive with a good backup strategy will be better than the fanciest RAID configuration and a poor backup strategy. RAID will improve his online availability but do nothing for security. Decide on what kind of backup he wants (tape, external drive, DVD etc) and then decide on what drive configuration. If the backup is good, base the drive config on price and availability rather than how high a RAID number you can get.

Consider as well getting the enterprise level drives. These are rated for continuous operation rather occasional as in a typical office desktop.

This is quite possibly the best post I have seen all day.

 

[tdg]

No offense, but I would really look into a OEM solution for a business file server, it may be more costly, but they have it down to a science and you can purchase a nice, long support contract.

 

[XeeN]

Thanks for all the replies! And thanks for the suggestions of heading towards Dell or another OEM supplier with support contracts.

As far as building systems go, I'm not over my head - but as far as data storage and backup that needs to go along with that go, I haven't had any experience at the terabyte levels we're seeing now.

He'll be the only user of the file server too. If I do put in a good processor then he might use it for long scripts he runs to process his photos and then continue working on his main machine.

I will definately suggest alternatives from large developers that could provide the service contracts and other solutions that would keep stress levels down in the future for fixing any major problems. I will also suggest that he look into (if he does want me to build this) having two 750GB drives ready to cycle in and out for backup.

By the way - when you say use a 750GB drive for backup, do you mean use it as the parity disk in a RAID 5 array or just a drive that is backed up to nightly?

Thanks again for all the time spent answering my questions - very informative, and a great post I'll refer others to in the future.

 

[matt fury]

They mean a drive that is backed up to nightly or whatnot. A raid 5 array will let you recover from losing a disk, but they won't recover from accidentally deleted files, viruses, corruption, etc.

 

[unhappy_mage]

By the way - when you say use a 750GB drive for backup, do you mean use it as the parity disk in a RAID 5 array or just a drive that is backed up to nightly?

Separate backup disk. Raid 5 is an uptime device only - if you (for example) delete a file, or overwrite it, the old contents are gone forever. Since the backup is offline, you could pull an old version off it.

 

[valve1138]

No offense, but I would really look into a OEM solution for a business file server, it may be more costly, but they have it down to a science and you can purchase a nice, long support contract.

I agree. The waranty support is worth it IMO.

 

[Michael Daly]

By the way - when you say use a 750GB drive for backup, do you mean use it as the parity disk in a RAID 5 array or just a drive that is backed up to nightly?

If his business depends on the data, he really needs to have an offsite backup solution. Copying the files to another drive every night will provide some safety, but getting a series of backups in another location is the best solution. If he has a fire, water damage etc., he can lose both his server and any single backup disk. By keeping the backup offsite, that risk is considerably reduced. There are companies that provide offsite storage (one local to me uses what used to be a fur coat storage vault!) that is secure and much safer than the average office. Even keeping the backups in his home can reduce the risk compared to keeping it in his office.

 

[MixManSC]

If his business depends on the data, he really needs to have an offsite backup solution. Copying the files to another drive every night will provide some safety, but getting a series of backups in another location is the best solution. If he has a fire, water damage etc., he can lose both his server and any single backup disk. By keeping the backup offsite, that risk is considerably reduced. There are companies that provide offsite storage (one local to me uses what used to be a fur coat storage vault!) that is secure and much safer than the average office. Even keeping the backups in his home can reduce the risk compared to keeping it in his office.

I'd have to agree. I'll also state that a removable hard drive is NOT a proper backup for a business. If he drops it once, his backup is gone. He really needs to either archive backups to tape or optical disc. The true standard for business data backup is tape. SDLT or LTO are the best options and if he can stomach the budget for it autoloaders make backup life a lot easier. RAID, as already said is just for uptime. The ironic beauty of mirrored drives, you will have two corrupt copies of that corrupted file. That's where the backups come in handy. I own a graphics company and we handle gobs of client files daily. I invested in an LTO1 9 tape autoloader. Picked it up on eBay for $500 then spent another $500 on tapes. That gives me native 900GB of capacity or 1.8TB with 2:1 compression. Also - think of your tape sets like RAID. Mirror them, have two sets backed up just to be sure. Unless you are a big risk taker and losing your entire business is an appealing thought... I keep a full set of backup tapes here at my shop and incrementally add to them nightly. I keep another full set of tapes at home in a fireproof safe. I rotate the offsite set with the onsite set weekly so in a worst case such as my shop burns to the ground at most I've lost a weeks worth of data.

 

[Farva]

If he drops it once, his backup is gone. He really needs to either archive backups to tape or optical disc.

You'd be surprised what a drive can take. Would I risk it? Hell no. Tape backups are the best thing you can do, but if you use DVDs, make sure you test the data to make sure there was no corruption after the burn.

 

[XeeN]

I'm going to suggest a backup tape solution to him. Honestly I doubt he'll spend the budget on it just yet and will start with a good storage server and then get the tape backup as soon as possible. I'll also do my best to get him to store things off-site and cycle through.

Thank you guys for your input on RAID - I've learned a lot about what it's better for and what it's not better for.

I'll let you know how this process goes - if anyone else has input please do share it. I will probably come back here and ask some more questions. =P

 

[GeorgeHR]

I suppose this is a one man shop.

Just put a couple large hard drives on his computer. Use XCopy to do incremental backups everyday.

Use the internet to do nightly/weekly/monthly backups of changed photos and whatever else back to his home computer.

---

His work volume does not merit a large expense.