Home storage/print/network server

[TripperJoe]

So I have some leftover cases, cards, etc and I realized it would be nice to have a secure data server for my family so I don't have to worry so much about people losing data on their laptops/desktops.

What I have:
Video
Case
Ram 1gb
380w Seasonic s12 PSU
1.8ghz single AMD 3000+
LANPARTY UT nF3 ULTRA-D
Canon USB printer/scanner/fax

What I need:
raid card?
hard drives

I've built plenty of desktops, so that's not an issue. What I need to know is what's the best budget solution I can implement to maximize data integrity. I'm not gonna bother with tapes/firesafety so I guess my limitation is that the data is all going to sit on this computer. Speed is not really an issue, as this will be a storage system. Additionally, uptime isn't really critical--just need to have the data still there when I reboot. What kind of Raid setup am I looking at and will my motherboard be able to handle it or do I need an external pci card?

 

[mpilchfamily]

onboard raid should be able to handle the raid 1 array you will be putting together. Stick with what you have.

 

[Cr0nJ0b]

It will depend somewhat on how much data you have to protect and where you use it. For example, if you have 10GB of pictures that you download to your home desktop system and you want that protected, then a simple mirror on the server of (2) 500GB drives would be perfect. You could sync the folders at night so you would always have the data in both places. This would allow you to keep using your standard picture upload scheme, and add protection on top.

If you need this as a backup target for your various desktop systems, then I would go with RAID 0 for max capacity, knowing that you have the data in two places.

If you are planning to setup a single dumping ground for all of your media files and use this as a central access point, you will likely need more capacity. If less than a TB will do, then RAID 1 with 1TB drives will work, but you might fill it up too quickly. I personally use a software RAID 5 on a linux system for this solution. It's fast enough for my needs and works like a charm. When my build is complete I'll have about 6TB Raw on a single system...but for this one, I'll use a combination of hardware RAID 5 and software RAID 5. The only reason I'm using hardware is that I got a great deal on a controller ($40 for 8 port SAS megaraid). My goal will be to have a lot of capacity in a couple systems and to sync data from system to system. Even with RAID you need a backup.

 

[TripperJoe]

Originally posted by: Cr0nJ0b
If you are planning to setup a single dumping ground for all of your media files and use this as a central access point, you will likely need more capacity.

So this is the case. Pictures, videos, and music will comprise the bulk of the data--text and documents don't really take up much space, obviously.

If the house burns down, so be it. I will have other things to worry about. I guess the main things I am looking at are avoiding data corruption or hardware failure. So as long as the PC stays plugged in, I would like a 99.99% assurance that in 5years (assuming I perform the necessary maintenance), the data will still be there.

Ideally the less money spent the better. Would raid-5 with 3x1TB drives be reasonable security? Or 2x1TB raid-1 with another 1x1TB as a backup? Or is just 2x1TB raid-1 enough to suit my purposes.

Thanks for the input so far!

 

[TheKub]

Originally posted by: TripperJoe
I guess the main things I am looking at are avoiding data corruption...

Then solely relying on RAID is a bad idea because should there be a bug\surge\virus\accidental deletion your "backup" is gone immediately. Search the threads there are alot of people that had RAID bite them in the ass.

If you still want to go this path duplicating the data from clients to servers might afford you a small bit of protection should the raid fail you.

 

[TripperJoe]

So how about this:

Raid1 (2x1TB on the server)
Bi-Weekly backups (to a 1xTB drive on one of the client PCs)

3 drives into 1 seems like a lot. If I'm spending triple the money I'd really like some semblance of security. Raid 5 seems like the best value, but is that not really a great solution?

 

[TheKub]

At that point why do the RAID in the first place? Do you generate new data multiple times a day? Do the external and backup on demand.

 

[Cr0nJ0b]

I would go the other way around. What I do is supply more than enough space on the client side for pictures and such. I think run a sync program to copy from there to the backup server. Have that run every night and you will be good. The only issue would come if you, like me have a huge music or picture repository that you keep on the central server. In that case you would want to have a full copy of the music server volume on another volume and maybe another system. Putting it on another system would give you higher availability, but it won't buy you a ton for recovery...so...for recovery, use single drives or RAID0 not RAID 1 (it's cheaper).

If you have a 1TB requirement, then just load on drive as the primary on server. Then load the other as a backup, either on that system or on another system and sync the disks with something like rsync. That's 2 drives and get's you DR. If you want HA, then put a RAID 1 in server and a backup drive on anther system that you sync to. That's nice if you have the system and the bandwidth internally.

 

[TripperJoe]

Originally posted by: Cr0nJ0b
If you want HA, then put a RAID 1 in server and a backup drive on anther system that you sync to. That's nice if you have the system and the bandwidth internally.

This is probably what I will do. I assume there will be several writes to the server daily, since there will be 3 users in the household (2 laptops, 3 PCs). The bandwidth shouldn't be a huge problem, since I can just run the script at 4am over the LAN. Is there a particular program you would recommend to do so? Preferably something that just updates changes so it doesn't have to rewrite the entire volume every time...

So:
Raid 1 on server
Backup mirror on client PC


edit:
so now to pick out 3 identical drives. is there any voodoo to selecting? or just go for the cheapest $/GB

 

[0roo0roo]

power consumption might be lousy for something running 24/7

 

[TripperJoe]

I can probably underclock the processor and run at around ~100w from the wall. That's not too bad, right?

 

[Cr0nJ0b]

I woulldn't worry too much about the drives. I generally stick with Seagate, but I've been know to buy Maxtor, Hitachi and WD from time to time. I like Seagate best and find that they are very reliable.

100W good. You could probably get it lower with an integrated Graphics chip, undervolting and a low power processor. I'm really not sure how low you can go...i've thought about experimenting with this, but have never done it. My server runs at 140W with 8 drives and embedded GPU.

 

[0roo0roo]

well just for comparison a laptop probably runs 30 watts.
so 100 is actually not low at all, its basic average desktop consumption.
my guess is a router with print server/nas features probably runs way lower.
course it costs money, but low power consumption board+cpu costs even more i bet.. but can do more...its a trade off

 

[mooseracing]

I would go for a cheap RAID card that doesn't use onboard. If you onboard controller dies you could be hosed.

I would also do a single smal drive for the OS not on the RAID.

Then do RAID 1 of 2 drives for your data. If you are worried about drive failure buy different brand drives or buy from different places to avoid the same batches.