Hi,

I'm in need for (budget) storage at home.  After doing a little
research i decided to build my own NAS server.
I've got an "old" AMD Athlon XP 2400+ with one GB of ram, so that will
be more than sufficient i guess.

I've been thinking of doing the following, but i wonder if it's the
best way to do it:

-  I can use the onboard IDE or SATA port to setup a mirrored OS  (two
small drives).

-  I'll add an 8 port SATA Raid controller, for example the FastTrak
SX8300 from Promise Technology to store all data in RAID5.    I can
attach 8x 250GB discs = 2000 GB in total , minus one disc for Raid5 =
1750 GB for data! That should be enough for a long time!....

- With this setup i have fault tolerance for both OS and especially
for the data!

What do you guys think of this setup? Is the FastTrak a good choice?
Are there better disc configs?

One very important question remains:  i'd very much like an automated
backup, not expensive of course.  Raid5 is fault tolerant, but of
course, i still need a way to backup my data!  How can i do this?  Or
should i add 320gb dics (to have more storage) and then use a part of
the discs for backup purposes?  What's good software to backup to
HDD?  Or is there a better solution?

This is all new for me, so i can use some advice :-)

Thanks in advance guys!
Kris

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On 16 mrt, 09:03, "kris.vandevij...@gmail.com"
<kris.vandevij...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm in need for (budget) storage at home.  After doing a little
> research i decided to build my own NAS server.
> I've got an "old" AMD Athlon XP 2400+ with one GB of ram, so that will
> be more than sufficient i guess.
>

...


An additional question:  i just read that there are SATA I and SATA II
compliant raid controllers on the market.  Since only two or three
users will be accessing the NAS server, i wonder if this is important
for me?   My motherboard doesn't support PCI-Express so i'm hoping
that SATA I will be sufficient.  Also, isn't the network the
bottleneck here and not the SATA I or II controller?

thanks again!
Kris

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

kris.vandevijver@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm in need for (budget) storage at home.  After doing a little
> research i decided to build my own NAS server.
> I've got an "old" AMD Athlon XP 2400+ with one GB of ram, so that will
> be more than sufficient i guess.
>
> I've been thinking of doing the following, but i wonder if it's the
> best way to do it:
>
> -  I can use the onboard IDE or SATA port to setup a mirrored OS  (two
> small drives).
>
> -  I'll add an 8 port SATA Raid controller, for example the FastTrak
> SX8300 from Promise Technology to store all data in RAID5.    I can
> attach 8x 250GB discs = 2000 GB in total , minus one disc for Raid5 =
> 1750 GB for data! That should be enough for a long time!....
>
> - With this setup i have fault tolerance for both OS and especially
> for the data!
>
> What do you guys think of this setup? Is the FastTrak a good choice?
> Are there better disc configs?
>
> One very important question remains:  i'd very much like an automated
> backup, not expensive of course.  Raid5 is fault tolerant, but of
> course, i still need a way to backup my data!  How can i do this?  Or
> should i add 320gb dics (to have more storage) and then use a part of
> the discs for backup purposes?  What's good software to backup to
> HDD?  Or is there a better solution?
>
> This is all new for me, so i can use some advice :-)

Well, different people can have different ideas about just what 'budget'
means, but to establish a base-line from which you could work upward I'd
suggest getting rid of the RAID controller (for the price of which you
can buy well over 1 TB of disk today if you shop around) and using
software RAID (which will allow you to mirror your OS on a small portion
of some of the same disks you use to hold your data - either use
slightly larger disks in those cases, or if you choose to use RAID-1 for
your data just cut back on the usable data storage on one pair by the
size of your OS).

Use software RAID-5 if you're willing to chance a rare data corruption
if your system dies (perhaps due to a simple loss of power) and a disk
turns up dead on restart.  If a write was being performed at the time of
the system failure and either the associated data or the parity got
updated but not both, when you go to reconstitute the piece of the RAID
stripe that was on the failed disk you'll get garbage, unless you were
lucky and that piece was the data being written (in which case you're no
worse off than for any write operation that may or may not have  fully
completed) or was the associated parity.

Otherwise, use software RAID-1 (mirroring - you can use all the cash you
saved by not buying the hardware RAID card to make up the difference in
storage required, and you'll get better performance, both when writing
and when operating with a failed disk, in the bargain).

Using larger (and fewer) disks would mean that you didn't need nearly as
many ports to connect them to.  The lowest-cost option would be to use
the two ATA cable ports on your MB support four disks by themselves (at
Ultra-100/133 speeds sharing an ATA cable may still provide acceptable
performance for your needs), but PCI cards that add two more ATA ports
(each of which can support another 2 disks if need be) are very
inexpensive (SATA cards may be as well, but I haven't priced them
recently).  ATA drives have been cheap as chips for a long time, but
SATA drives are also plummeting toward the $0.25/GB mark now.  The main
difference between them is that the most recent SATA drives support
native command queuing, which can make a noticeable performance
difference in heavy server use (then again, it doesn't sound as if your
use is likely to be anywhere nearly that heavy).

As for backing up to the disks in the same array, I don't think you'll
find too many people who would recommend that:  there are just too many
situations where losing your data would also mean losing its backup
copies (which ideally are kept separated, both electronically and in
space, for that reason).

In any event, good luck - hope it works out well.

- bill

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On 17 mrt, 04:26, Bill Todd <billt...@metrocast.net> wrote:
>
> Well, different people can have different ideas about just what 'budget'
> means, but to establish a base-line from which you could work upward I'd
> suggest getting rid of the RAID controller (for the price of which you
> can buy well over 1 TB of disk today if you shop around) and using
> software RAID (which will allow you to mirror your OS on a small portion
> of some of the same disks you use to hold your data - either use
> slightly larger disks in those cases, or if you choose to use RAID-1 for
> your data just cut back on the usable data storage on one pair by the
> size of your OS).
>
>  ...
>
> - bill-


Bill,

Wow! Many many thanks for all this great info!
I must say that i learned a lot!

-Kris

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Mar 26, 4:52 am, "kris.vandevij...@gmail.com"
<kris.vandevij...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 17 mrt, 04:26, Bill Todd <billt...@metrocast.net> wrote:
>
>
> 
> 
> 
>
> Bill,
>
> Wow! Many many thanks for all this great info!
> I must say that i learned a lot!
>
> -Kris


If you don't mind me sidetracking the discussion:
How about just buying a small purpose-built mini-NAS server from
Adaptec:

http://www.adaptec.com/en-US/produc...nap_Server_110/
http://www.adaptec.com/en-US/produc...nap_Server_210/

The 210 series uses 2x HD and can be set up with RAID1 for protection
against disk failure.
Silent, power efficient, small.

Might be more $$ up front than a BYO solution, but tested, proven,
supported etc.
Hey, it even supports iSCSI !

I have used the now-obsolete Snap Server 1100, and was very happy with
it.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

In article <1175013571.314952.105720@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
knutmeidal@gmail.com says...
>
>On Mar 26, 4:52 am, "kris.vandevij...@gmail.com"
><kris.vandevij...@gmail.com> wrote: 
>
>
>If you don't mind me sidetracking the discussion:
>How about just buying a small purpose-built mini-NAS server from
>Adaptec:
>
>http://www.adaptec.com/en-US/produc...nap_Server_110/
>http://www.adaptec.com/en-US/produc...nap_Server_210/
>
>The 210 series uses 2x HD and can be set up with RAID1 for protection
>against disk failure.
>Silent, power efficient, small.
>
>Might be more $$ up front than a BYO solution, but tested, proven,
>supported etc.
>Hey, it even supports iSCSI !
>
>I have used the now-obsolete Snap Server 1100, and was very happy with
>it.
>

then you'd be one of the few people happy with a SNAP server NAS
(or iSCSI) solution. most of the people I know, including Adaptec,
are NOT happy with the performance, support or reliability of SNAP
products. There are plenty of inexpensive NAS solutions around,
including many based on Windows. look at www.xtore-es.com and call
or email me if you need any help figuring out the configuration.

_____                         .     .
'    \\                  .                .                       |>>
O//             .                        .                    |
\_\          .                              .                  |
| |      .                                    .      .         |
/  |  .          www.EvenEnterprises.com        .   .    .      |
/  .|            info@EvenEnterprises.com         . .      .     |
/ .  |         310-544-9439 / 310-544-9309 fax      .        .  . o
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorized - DIRECT VAR/VAD/Distributor for new mid-high end storage
iSCSI/NAS/SAN/RAID from EMC, HP, Equallogic, Quantum, OverLand Storage

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

I just a built a home NAS (amongst other things) using off-the -shelf
components from Frys. $1100 for:

Motherboard with on board graphics, Gbit NIC and SATA RAID (0, 1, 0+1)
3Ghz Dual Core P4
4GB Memory
4x300GB SATA-II
Hot swap drive bay (4x 3.5 SATA drives in 3x5.25" bays)
Midtower chassis

Add another $30 for a DVD-burner if you want one (I already had one
spare) And you are good to go.
--
Nik Simpson

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

>
> then you'd be one of the few people happy with a SNAP server NAS
> (or iSCSI) solution. most of the people I know, including Adaptec,
> are NOT happy with the performance, support or reliability of SNAP
> products. There are plenty of inexpensive NAS solutions around,
> including many based on Windows. look atwww.xtore-es.comand call
> or email me if you need any help figuring out the configuration.
>

The 110/210 is different (newer/better) than the discontinued
1100/2100 series.
I have heard little negative about the 1100 series, and even fewer for
the 110.
I would absolutely like to know what experiences people have with them
(110/210), and I will happily change my mind about them.


>   _____                         .     .
>  '    \\                  .                .                       |>>
>      O//             .                        .                    |
>     \_\          .                              .                  |
>     | |      .                                    .      .         |
>    /  |  .          www.EvenEnterprises.com       .   .    .      |
>   /  .|            i...@EvenEnterprises.com         . .      .     |
>  / .  |         310-544-9439 / 310-544-9309 fax      .        .  . o
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Authorized - DIRECT VAR/VAD/Distributor for new mid-high end storage
> iSCSI/NAS/SAN/RAID from EMC, HP, Equallogic, Quantum, OverLand Storage

Quite a long signature...
And I couldn't bring up that link...

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]