Solaris 11 Express NAS incoming

mrgstiffler

mrgstiffler

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 20, 2000
Messages
13,408
I'm planning out a home NAS using Solaris 11 Express. I have most of the parts selected and will be ordering the rest today or tomorrow.

Uses:
-File storage
-Playstation Media Server
-SABnzbd+
-Transmission
-AMP (Apache MySQL PHP)
-SFTP
-Backup (Windows and Time Machine)

Parts:
-8x 2TB Hitachi 5k3000
-2x 500GB Seagate Momentus XT
-BR10i
-Intel Core i3 530
-Gigabyte GT210 (Single-slot passive)
-8GB DDR3
-Motherboard/case unknown

Configuration:
-OpenSolaris Expressinstalled onto 500GB mirror
-RAIDZ2 on 8x 2TB
-Media folders shared via SMB/AFP/SFTP/WWW/PMS
-htdocs folder with snapshots shared via SMB/AFP/SFTP mounted to desktop and used as Dropbox folder
-Important files folder with encryption/snapshot/automated onside/offsite backup (USB/SFTP) shared via SMB/AFP (shell script/cron should take care of this)
-napp-it for management

Questions:
-Need to pick out a case and motherboard
-Case needs either 8 bay hotswap or 6 5.25" bays for hotswap enclosures
-Board needs slots for videocard, BR10i and possible Intel NIC
-I wont have any problems with the 8x 2TB drives in RAIDZ2 will I?
-I can configure encryption and snapshots on a per-folder basis, correct?
-Is there anything else I need to think about?
 
Stanza33 said:
Yes, does that motherboard / CPU combo take ECC Ram?

with that much data (and ZFS recommendations) I would be running ECC Memory
Click to expand...

The threads I've read about that have basically said that it really isn't that big of a problem. Especially for home use.
 
Not preferable, since the number of data drives is 3 (not power of 2). Also, your math is wrong, I think. An 8-disk raidz2 has 6 data drives. Two 4-disk raidz striped is still 6 data drives, no? For that matter, the original suggestion had the same minor performance issue: 6 data drives is not a power of 2. Depending on whether the OP minds 50% overhead, 4 2-disk mirrors striped together will kick ass on reads.
 
danswartz said:
For that matter, the original suggestion had the same minor performance issue: 6 data drives is not a power of 2.
Click to expand...

How much of a performance issue are we talking? This is just replacing an HP MediaSmart that went belly up. No VMs, not a whole lot of IOPS. Just storing media/files and streaming.
 
Pretty minor, I believe. If it's low performance, I'd stick with the 8 disk raidz2.
 
Maximus825 said:
How much of a performance issue are we talking? This is just replacing an HP MediaSmart that went belly up. No VMs, not a whole lot of IOPS. Just storing media/files and streaming.
Click to expand...

I just ran some tests creating 10, 30 and 100GB files on my server with 8 and 9 drive raidz2 zpools. The performance difference is pretty unnoticeable: 8 drive: ~600MB/s, 9 drive: 640MB/s. That is using Hitachi 5K3000 drives connected to IBM M1015's. Which for me is more than enough.
 
Maximus825 said:
The threads I've read about that have basically said that it really isn't that big of a problem. Especially for home use.
Click to expand...

depends if you care about your data. personally, i want to limit risk when dealing with that much data...and for the few bucks...imho, it's a no brainer to use ecc.
 
davros123 said:
depends if you care about your data. personally, i want to limit risk when dealing with that much data...and for the few bucks...imho, it's a no brainer to use ecc.
Click to expand...

It's true that ECC (unbuffered) ram itself is only a little more. The problem for some is in order to actually use it you ALSO need a motherboard and CPU that supports it...at least for an Intel rig. It means a server board (chipset) and a Xeon CPU. You can't do ECC with the desktop boards and CPU's. So the total platform cost goes up a fair amount in order make use of ECC. That is worth it for some...and perhaps not worth it for others.
 
TypeRazor said:
I just ran some tests creating 10, 30 and 100GB files on my server with 8 and 9 drive raidz2 zpools. The performance difference is pretty unnoticeable: 8 drive: ~600MB/s, 9 drive: 640MB/s. That is using Hitachi 5K3000 drives connected to IBM M1015's. Which for me is more than enough.
Click to expand...

With a raidz2 wouldn't you want to be testing a 6 (4 data) or 10 (8 data) drive config against a 7, 8, or 9 drive config to get an idea of the performance hit?
 
Silenus said:
It's true that ECC (unbuffered) ram itself is only a little more. The problem for some is in order to actually use it you ALSO need a motherboard and CPU that supports it...at least for an Intel rig. It means a server board (chipset) and a Xeon CPU. You can't do ECC with the desktop boards and CPU's. So the total platform cost goes up a fair amount in order make use of ECC. That is worth it for some...and perhaps not worth it for others.
Click to expand...

I like going Xeon/server route for ECC, higher end NIC's, onboard video, and remote management.
 
apnar said:
With a raidz2 wouldn't you want to be testing a 6 (4 data) or 10 (8 data) drive config against a 7, 8, or 9 drive config to get an idea of the performance hit?
Click to expand...

That was mostly just to show the difference between using a "power of 2" vs a "power of 3" theory danswartz was talking about
 
davros123 said:
depends if you care about your data. personally, i want to limit risk when dealing with that much data...and for the few bucks...imho, it's a no brainer to use ecc.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of things you can do to minimize your risk. You have to work within your budget though. It's for home use and my most important data is backed up multiple times. I can afford to lose the majority of the data that will be stored on this server. It's more of a "That really sucks!" than "What am I going to do??" Besides, ECC RAM doesn't cover the entire system.

Got 3 of the drives today. The rest of the parts will be here Monday/Tuesday. When my MediaSmart died, I had to put the drives in my desktop. Looking forward to transferring the data and getting rid of them.
 
TypeRazor said:
That was mostly just to show the difference between using a "power of 2" vs a "power of 3" theory danswartz was talking about
Click to expand...

With 8 and 9 drive RaidZ2 pools you never tested a "power of 2". Your pools were 6+2 (8 drive) and 7+2 (9 drive). The "power of two" requires 6 or 10 drives for RaidZ2 (4+2 of 8+2). You should also be testing write speed, not read speed, as that is where the biggest difference from the mis-alignment.

I do agree that the difference would probably be small.
 
I am building a similar system and have decided to use AMD cpu/mobo for ECC because the Core i3/5 does not take advantage of ECC. For Intel ECC you have to buy a Xeon but AMD you can use consumer parts.
 
shiznit said:
I am building a similar system and have decided to use AMD cpu/mobo for ECC because the Core i3/5 does not take advantage of ECC. For Intel ECC you have to buy a Xeon but AMD you can use consumer parts.
Click to expand...

That's not quite true, there are a number of boards that support core processors that will support ECC, its just most consumer chipsets don't support ECC. The intel 3400/3420 chipset supports ECC and i3 Processors.

Check out some supermicro boards [example]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top