Wolvers' Home Server Build

welshdragon · 6 Mar 2011 at 18:30

Cheers bud. The DS210j will be going on the MM soon.

I have a thread in the MM wanted section mate, any chance of first refusal for my enthusiasm?

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18249367

Disco Boy · 6 Mar 2011 at 18:38

wolvers69 said:
It appears as an standard HDD so is simpler to configure for boot and installation of the OS, well that's my theory anyway. I though it was neater for the build and it's faster than a USB stick too.

Sounds pretty good, quite an interesting thing, I wasn't aware of their existence. What is the performance like? Snappy enough to use? I might be interested in using one as a second boot drive to run ubuntu/mint for using when I build my next rig, can you get them any bigger (say 16/32gb) as it would be mainly for an SSH shell, but also some processing of files too (although I would have different hard drives too for files, but a couple of programmes would be useful).

wolvers · 6 Mar 2011 at 18:53

Disco Boy said:
Sounds pretty good, quite an interesting thing, I wasn't aware of their existence. What is the performance like? Snappy enough to use? I might be interested in using one as a second boot drive to run ubuntu/mint for using when I build my next rig, can you get them any bigger (say 16/32gb) as it would be mainly for an SSH shell, but also some processing of files too (although I would have different hard drives too for files, but a couple of programmes would be useful).

There's a 16GB one but it's silly expensive. You're better off getting a cheap SSD.

NickM · 6 Mar 2011 at 20:24

I'm trying to do exactly this at the moment but was struggling to find a decent looking small case. I found this http://www.fractal-design.com/?view=product&prod=43 but its quite big due to the stupid horizontal drive stacking and apparently it doesn't cool the drives that well, which is a shame because it looks pretty awesome!

The case you're using doesn't look too bad, any chance of a few more pics of the outside?
You mention that the 120mm was the noisiest and you used an LNA adapter to quieten it, what is an LNA adapter exactly?
Does the IDE flash module just sit on top of the IDE port? Is there a 2.5" drive bay in addition to the 4x 3.5" bays if I wanted to use that instead of the flash module?

Thanks

wolvers · 6 Mar 2011 at 20:49

NickM said:
I'm trying to do exactly this at the moment but was struggling to find a decent looking small case. I found this http://www.fractal-design.com/?view=product&prod=43 but its quite big due to the stupid horizontal drive stacking and apparently it doesn't cool the drives that well, which is a shame because it looks pretty awesome!
The case you're using doesn't look too bad, any chance of a few more pics of the outside?
You mention that the 120mm was the noisiest and you used an LNA adapter to quieten it, what is an LNA adapter exactly?
Does the IDE flash module just sit on top of the IDE port? Is there a 2.5" drive bay in addition to the 4x 3.5" bays if I wanted to use that instead of the flash module?

Thanks

Tell me what pics you want and I'll post them.

The LNA adapter came with a Noctua fan that I have in another machine, it just reduces the voltage to the fan from 12v to 5v.

Yes, the flash module plugs straight into the IDE socket and yes there is a 2.5" drive bay internally that you could use instead.

Hope that helps.

NickM · 6 Mar 2011 at 21:39

Thanks, just a few shots of the front/back of the case would be good.
With that motherboard, can all the SATA ports be used to make one large 4 disk array? Just thought I'd check since according to the gigabyte website each pair of ports has a different controller chip.

JonJ678 · 6 Mar 2011 at 22:17

40MB/s is very good for samba, I'm still using a 100mbit switch, so all I know for certain is that my NAS will saturate 100mbit. I'd be thrilled if it gets anywhere near 40 with a better switch. NFS is generally faster, but does limit you to communication with other linux machines. If you're doing backups or similar, rsync & rsnapshot are fantastic tools for reducing the amount of data transferred.

That's the first I've seen of webmin; I'm not convinced I like that. Currently the only access I have available is ssh (the device has a power socket and a nic, but nothing else) but that's working out well enough. Thanks for the suggestion though.

@nick, Ubuntu will build a raid 5 out of whatever you like. Or raid 6, or 10. A consequence of the "everything is a file" mentality is that you can raid a dvd-rw with a hard drive and a usb stick if the urge takes you. It doesn't use the "hardware" raid on the motherboard, so it doesn't matter whether the chipset supports raid or not.

wolvers · 6 Mar 2011 at 22:20

NickM said:
Thanks, just a few shots of the front/back of the case would be good.
With that motherboard, can all the SATA ports be used to make one large 4 disk array? Just thought I'd check since according to the gigabyte website each pair of ports has a different controller chip.

There isn't much more to show you of the front, other than with the door open (in the OP) but here is a shot of the back of the case.

It doesn't matter how the RAID works on the mobo as Ubuntu Server uses a software form of RAID, as does FreeNAS AFAIK, so it may depend on the OS that you choose as to whether this mobo is suitable for you or not. I hope that makes sense.

wolvers · 6 Mar 2011 at 22:29

JonJ678 said:
40MB/s is very good for samba, I'm still using a 100mbit switch, so all I know for certain is that my NAS will saturate 100mbit. I'd be thrilled if it gets anywhere near 40 with a better switch. NFS is generally faster, but does limit you to communication with other linux machines. If you're doing backups or similar, rsync & rsnapshot are fantastic tools for reducing the amount of data transferred.

I just did a quick comparison transferring a 2.5GB video file from both network drives to the HDD of a PC attached via gigalan. The speeds were 28MB/s from the Synology and 52MB/s from the Ubuntu Server. I'm pretty pleased with that.

I think it's possible to install an NFS client on windows PCs, it's something I'm looking into now.

Thanks for the backup sync recommendations I will look into those.

JonJ678 said:
That's the first I've seen of webmin; I'm not convinced I like that.

Really? What's not to like? It's just a browser based config tool, like the Synology one, so that you can admin the server from any PC.

NickM · 6 Mar 2011 at 22:37

Since I dont know any Linux, all my computers run Windows, and I have access to a (legal) free copy of Windows Server 2008 R2 I was just going to use that. Would it be better to use Ubuntu server instead? I dont actually need any mirroring, I just want to put 3 disks in there which appear as one big disk with the option to add a 4th disk in the future if necessary.

wolvers · 7 Mar 2011 at 07:55

Probably your best bet is to ask in the windows forum. Personally, I have no experience with any of the windows server versions.

stockhausen · 7 Mar 2011 at 08:48

Thanks for a fascinating thread.

Hi wolvers69

Many thanks for a fascinating thread.

I applaud the use of Linux & Samba. What particularly interests me in a build such as this is power usage, heat, noise and obviously - performance.

I suspect that whatever you do, the factor limiting performance is going to be the LAN speed. So, a few questions . . . have you tried:

connecting a PC to the NIC via a crossover cable?
replacing the RAM with a 512MB and/or 1GB stick?
installing two sticks of RAM to test out the impact of dual channel memory

You have 2 (out of a possible 4) x 2TB HDDs mirrored; I believe that there are reasons why it is challenging to move beyond 2TB - have you researched this?

How will you backup this NAS box (assuming you plan to do so)?

As a completely unrelated question, is there any way of using this box as an external USB drive?

Finally, how noisy is the box and have you made any progress on silencing it still further?

Again, a GREAT thread.

wolvers · 7 Mar 2011 at 10:31

stockhausen said:
I suspect that whatever you do, the factor limiting performance is going to be the LAN speed. So, a few questions . . . have you tried:

connecting a PC to the NIC via a crossover cable?

replacing the RAM with a 512MB and/or 1GB stick?

installing two sticks of RAM to test out the impact of dual channel memory

I haven't tried either of those items but you are correct that I am reaching the theoretical speed limits of gigalan. At this time I'm not too concerned with trying to push that further, although it may be something that I will look into in the future. I am considering getting another stick of 2GB RAM to see what impact more RAM and dual-channel may have on performance of transferring larger files.

stockhausen said:
You have 2 (out of a possible 4) x 2TB HDDs mirrored; I believe that there are reasons why it is challenging to move beyond 2TB - have you researched this?

Are you saying that the LinuxRAID package only supports up to 2TB? If you know more I'm keen to hear.

stockhausen said:
How will you backup this NAS box (assuming you plan to do so)?

USB drives plugged directly into the server, set to sync nightly.

stockhausen said:
As a completely unrelated question, is there any way of using this box as an external USB drive?

I've no idea, it's not something I have given any consideration to. Is that something you would want to do?

stockhausen said:
Finally, how noisy is the box and have you made any progress on silencing it still further?

I'm very happy with the noise levels now. The small fans are not noisy at all and the 120mm fan is inaudible now that I have reduced it's speed. While transferring large amounts of data I noticed that I could just about hear the HDDs in the DS210j (I forget what they are now), but the HDDs I have used in the Ubuntu Server could not be heard at all.

stockhausen said:
Again, a GREAT thread.

Thanks, everyone's feedback and help are much appreciated.

stockhausen · 7 Mar 2011 at 11:00

wolvers69 said:
... Are you saying that the LinuxRAID package only supports up to 2TB? If you know more I'm keen to hear. ...

This issue may only apply to NTFS partitions. I'm not sure if it an issue with LinuxRAID. Have a look HERE for an explanation and possible fixes.

wolvers69 said:
... I've no idea, [connecting via UBS] is not something I have given any consideration to. Is that something you would want to do? ...

Just curious really, I know that it would never be anywhere near as fast as a Gigabit LAN.

Disco Boy · 7 Mar 2011 at 12:17

wolvers69 said:
USB drives plugged directly into the server, set to sync nightly.

May I ask why have you bothered with this? You already have the drives in RAID 1, the only thing more secure would be something off site or in a different location (which USB drives aren't) and it just makes it look untidy. If you wanted more redundancy why didn't you just use 4 drives in RAID 1?

wolvers · 7 Mar 2011 at 14:08

stockhausen said:
This issue may only apply to NTFS partitions. I'm not sure if it an issue with LinuxRAID. Have a look HERE for an explanation and possible fixes.

The file system I chose is the newest linux one called ext4. I found this when searching so I think I'm OK for future storage expansion;

The ext4 filesystem can support volumes with sizes up to 1 exabyte and files with sizes up to 16 terabytes

Disco Boy said:
May I ask why have you bothered with this? You already have the drives in RAID 1, the only thing more secure would be something off site or in a different location (which USB drives aren't) and it just makes it look untidy. If you wanted more redundancy why didn't you just use 4 drives in RAID 1?

The server isn't just backup for the PC's in the house, it is the main storage for them all (the HTPC for example has just one SSD with the OS on it) so it's important that I back those files up I feel. I figure that if the PSU or mobo dies it could take any and all HDDs, that are connected to them, with it so it's best to have a separate backup. Also, even if it dies and didn't damage HDDs I would have instant access to my files until the server is up and running again.

stockhausen · 7 Mar 2011 at 14:21

wolvers69 said:
The file system I chose is the newest linux one called ext4. I found this when searching so I think I'm OK for future storage expansion ...

Yup, just checked and with a limit of four SATA drives you are absolutely right . . . up to at least 16TB

The last Linux file system I used was ext3.

wolvers · 7 Mar 2011 at 14:25

I think ext3 is good for 32TB if you use the right block size.

Disco Boy · 7 Mar 2011 at 15:14

wolvers69 said:
The server isn't just backup for the PC's in the house, it is the main storage for them all (the HTPC for example has just one SSD with the OS on it) so it's important that I back those files up I feel. I figure that if the PSU or mobo dies it could take any and all HDDs, that are connected to them, with it so it's best to have a separate backup.

Oh okay, that makes sense, wasn't something which I had considered.

wolvers69 said:
Also, even if it dies and didn't damage HDDs I would have instant access to my files until the server is up and running again.

I'm not one hundred percent au fait with the particulars of hardware and software RAID, but if you had say 1 drive fail, with it being RAID 1 would you not just have to remove the other drive and plug it in elsewhere and it would work immediately anyway? Or is it different for software RAID?

Sorry for the inquisition I just find it interesting

wolvers · 7 Mar 2011 at 15:30

Disco Boy said:
I'm not one hundred percent au fait with the particulars of hardware and software RAID, but if you had say 1 drive fail, with it being RAID 1 would you not just have to remove the other drive and plug it in elsewhere and it would work immediately anyway? Or is it different for software RAID?

Sorry for the inquisition I just find it interesting

If I'm totally honest, I'm not so au fait with it that much either!

But I'm learning as I go. From what I was reading over the weekend, if one drive in the RAID1 array fails then it's a case of removing the faulty drive (I'm assuming that the error logs will indicate which one?), installing the new one, booting up and then running some commands to rebuild the array.

Found some info here;

http://tldp.org/FAQ/Linux-RAID-FAQ/x37.html#AEN145

When you get the new disk, power down the system, and install it, then partition the drive so that it has partitions the size of your missing RAID partitions. Once you have the partitions set up properly, just run mdadm --add /dev/md0 /dev/hdc1, where /dev/md0 is the RAID array you're adding the partition to, and /dev/hdc1 is the partition that you're trying to add. Reconstruction should start immediately.

If you would prefer to use the RAIDtools suite, you can use the command raidhotadd to put the new disk into the array and begin reconstruction.

'mdadm' by the way is the name of the LinuxRAID package.

Wolvers' Home Server Build

Capodecina

Capodecina

Capodecina