EPYC CPU for a NAS

N Bates

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 15, 2017
Messages
148
I know this cpu is probably an overkill for a NAS but my system is way due for an upgrade and I bought the below parts for the new proper server build, all this to fit in a Norco 24 bay case, current system is based on a Abit X38 motherboard and an Intel Q6600 cpu (hardly server class hardware):

Asrock EPYCD8-T2 (could be the EPYCD8, I haven't receive it yet, Amazon description is T2 but there was two of the same mobo priced differently, if not the T2, I will connect x540 T2)
Crucial 2 x 16 DDR4 single bank RDIMM
Corsair MP510 480GB nvme drive
Noctua NH U9 TR4/SP3 (two fan model)

Undecided on the below:

AMD EPYC 7301

Or:

AMD EPYC 7251
Plus 2 more crucial stick of RDIMM

Which above CPU option will be best for the NAS build.
 

N Bates

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 15, 2017
Messages
148
Yes, this is for home use, I wanted a board with a lot of PCIe slots and lanes and this is what has steared me this way, so the EPYC 7251 with the 8 core 16 threads will be good enought, this is the cheapest and the lowest EPYC from AMD, so I would't be able to go any lower than that.
 

WestSidaz

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 13, 2011
Messages
213
If you are still running Q6600.. u aint updating your gear so often so that much overkill sounds decent.. make one great overkill system and it serves you for a really long time.. no need to update every 5 years ;) :D
 

N Bates

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 15, 2017
Messages
148
I wanted sturdy server gear that was going to work as intended and was going to last, the EPYC are for servers, threadrippers are supposed to be for workstations, this is not my main PC, I will be upgrading that around the end of the year, I am still running an i7 920 :wacky:.
 

Hagrid

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Nov 23, 2006
Messages
8,643
An Epyc system for a NAS? I have not really looked into those much, but don't people usually build them out of spare parts that are usually ECC capable at best?
 

N Bates

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 15, 2017
Messages
148
An Epyc system for a NAS? I have not really looked into those much, but don't people usually build them out of spare parts that are usually ECC capable at best?
Yes, but usually if using spare parts and you need to attach, 24 or more drives and need the best 10gb speed you can get, old hardware won't cut it... and you won't get ECC capable hardware unless you buy old server gear.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
13,265
Should look closer at what NASs are built and sold as- you could do this with Ryzen 3000, with ECC RAM, 10Gbit (10Gbase-T onboard if you want), and roll out.

...Or, you can actually get an Intel i3 with ECC support as they fill the slot below the Xeons (and the Xeons are cheap).

The reality is that, over time, spinners aren't going to get faster- and even if they do, you don't need many to saturate 10Gbit.

If you're going to build for faster, well, good luck ;)
 

Hagrid

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Nov 23, 2006
Messages
8,643
Yes, but usually if using spare parts and you need to attach, 24 or more drives and need the best 10gb speed you can get, old hardware won't cut it... and you won't get ECC capable hardware unless you buy old server gear.
Like my old x99 system in my sig, it's pretty old.

I guess if somebody has the $$, the Epyc would be good for a long while.
 

N Bates

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 15, 2017
Messages
148
it's not like the EPYC CPU'a are all expensive, you could pick one up in the uk for just over $300.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
13,265
it's not like the EPYC CPU'a are all expensive, you could pick one up in the uk for just over $300.
That's less than expected, but there's also the cost of the board and the cost of filling memory channels there too (though you don't have to fill all of them). Then there's the lower boost clocks and resulting single-core performance.

But if the cost range is acceptable, it's not like it isn't a solid solution.
 

N Bates

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 15, 2017
Messages
148
That's less than expected, but there's also the cost of the board and the cost of filling memory channels there too (though you don't have to fill all of them). Then there's the lower boost clocks and resulting single-core performance.

But if the cost range is acceptable, it's not like it isn't a solid solution.
I needed to update my NAS anyhow, so, I might have paid more than I would have if I bought a Ryzen or similar, but this way, I can at least know that the hardware was build for entreprise solutions and will (hopefully) work as it should and be reliable.
 

Ready4Dis

Gawd
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
738
Just a NAS? Could probably run some VMs and set up a home lab of sorts with the spare power.
 

encore2097

[H]Lite
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
114
Depends on your client and network file share protocol. If its single threaded (SMB) a higher single core boost would be helpful, if its multithreaded and have many clients more cores (RDMA, NFS, etc.)
 

sirmonkey1985

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
21,762
i'd probably go with the 7251, can't really see where you'd get a lot of use out of 32 threads on the 7301.

now if you had an enclosure that could fit 20+ drives then i could definitely see where epyc as a nas platform is an option with the 128 pcie lanes.
 

Ready4Dis

Gawd
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
738
EPYC 2 is out, pcie 4.0, might need to run dual 100gbps nice or something... And a few nvme 4x 4.0. seriously though, pretty overkill for a nas.
 

Ready4Dis

Gawd
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
738
Not if it's one machine... I guess your could make a SAN from a single machine, not really sure though.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
13,265
Not if it's one machine... I guess your could make a SAN from a single machine, not really sure though.
Generally you'd consider a SAN to be more than one, but only because you'd be using the storage for other nodes.
 

Ready4Dis

Gawd
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
738
Generally you'd consider a SAN to be more than one, but only because you'd be using the storage for other nodes.
He said an enclosure, I assumed it was the same enclosure of the cpu which would be on the network. This is still a NAS, not a SAN from my understanding, although I'm sure there are fuzzy lines all over. Not really sure, depends on config I guess.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
13,265
He said an enclosure, I assumed it was the same enclosure of the cpu which would be on the network. This is still a NAS, not a SAN from my understanding, although I'm sure there are fuzzy lines all over. Not really sure, depends on config I guess.
Extremely fuzzy, because the definition of 'SAN' can be stretched to apply to your household Synology. The reason this looks like a SAN to me is that it's set up for doing significant amount of compute work along with server work and lots of virtualization and interconnect expansion. Yeah, maybe not explicitly a SAN until you add another compute node or two, but it's closer to that than a basic NAS, so :).
 

Ready4Dis

Gawd
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
738
Extremely fuzzy, because the definition of 'SAN' can be stretched to apply to your household Synology. The reason this looks like a SAN to me is that it's set up for doing significant amount of compute work along with server work and lots of virtualization and interconnect expansion. Yeah, maybe not explicitly a SAN until you add another compute node or two, but it's closer to that than a basic NAS, so :).
Yeah, I guess I never think much on it, I share my hdd in my server with other containers... I don't really consider that a SAN, because it's just mapping straight through. I do consider it a NAS because one of those containers runs samba and shares it on my network. Could probably be considered both I guess; NASSAN or SANNAS? ;)
 

Darth Ender

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Messages
501
this has to be a troll.

I just dont see how it can be serious.

Are we literally talking about 10G+ ethernet to connect, < .5TB of storage as a NAS server using a cpu above something like a 2400G ?

I'm sure there's a punchline in here somewhere. Or the OP really hates money, silence, practicality and associated concepts like sanity and logic.
 

Jinto

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 10, 2006
Messages
1,649
Not necessarily a troll. Sometimes you just want the hardware and try to justify it by thinking of uses for it.
 

OFaceSIG

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
2,193
I've been building FreeNAS/NAS4free builds for a decade. What's your limiting factor? Network. Not CPU, I assure you.

The dual core, low power, sandy bridge CPU in the NAS build in my sig, with encryption on, can push 1gbps all day long. No need for anything like EPYC. If I had more than two hard drives and a 10Gbps interface I could probably easily do 2Gbps.

Sturdy isn't the word you want to use. You want reliability. With ZFS under FreeNAS or any roll your own linux distro, you have that reliable file system. That's much more important then a "server grade" CPU.
 
Last edited:
Top