1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Build a Server - or - purchase a NAS External HDD?

Discussion in 'Networking & Security' started by Black Panther, Apr 21, 2009.

  1. Black Panther

    Black Panther Senior Moderator™ Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    8,577 (3.21/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,928
    I've got tons of stuff which I want to make available to my desktop, my laptop and kid's computer - without having to clutter their own HDD's so something else is necessary.

    I also want that this would be accessible not only from my own home network, but also through a web-address or something, from work a couple of miles away - for easy transfer of work files and backups.

    I need 1TB of space. Anything less would be too little and anything more would be too expensive.

    My choices are between either buying something like this or building my own server.

    I need help to decide which is the best for my purposes....


    Thing is... :eek: I know next to zilch about servers...
    I have a spare pc which can be used as a server - it's already assembled with single core processor less than 2Ghz, 512MB RAM etc and an HDD with XP Pro.

    The advantages of making a server would be that I can probably insert more 1TB drives if needed in the future, whereas if I were to buy a NAS I'd just have to buy another if I run out of space.
    Also I read that a server might be faster?

    The disadvantages would be that I only found for local purchase, IDE drives of 500GB costing €90 each - getting 2 of those for a server would cost more than the Lacie I linked to above. Further, I'd also have to purchase a USB wireless so the server connects to the router. Also, the NAS drive would consume only 14W, while a running pc will consume much more than that - apart from having to be switched on when needed so that I'd have 3 systems running rather than 2...

    Also read that Linux is best for such servers (either that or buying Windows Server 2003) so I'd have to 'ditch' the XP pro for an OS I've never used?
     
  2. DanTheBanjoman Señor Moderator

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,553 (2.79/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,383
    Building yourself is more fun of course and you'd keep more options to expand. Then again, if your needs won't grow that fast a 1-2 disk prebuild NAS is a good choice. You can later (few years?) replace the disks.
     
  3. Black Panther

    Black Panther Senior Moderator™ Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    8,577 (3.21/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,928
    Considered that option - but prebuild boxes without HDD's cost the same or more than a ready-built one? Makes little worth?
     
  4. WhiteLotus

    WhiteLotus

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Messages:
    6,536 (2.50/day)
    Thanks Received:
    847
    Thought about online storage? As in pay for web space...

    What kind of media are we talking about anyhow? I would go with a NAS over server.
     
  5. Black Panther

    Black Panther Senior Moderator™ Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    8,577 (3.21/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,928
    Prefer to have something physically mine... no 'rent' involved.

    Media - family videos & photos, save games, MS Office files, office accounting programs backup, customers' data, statements, storage of programs like cpu-z, gpu-z, SIW etc so they're accessible from everywhere without me having to dowload and install them every time... well a lot of stuff both recreational and work...
     
  6. suraswami

    suraswami

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2005
    Messages:
    6,163 (1.78/day)
    Thanks Received:
    822
    Location:
    Republic of Asia (a.k.a Irvine), CA
    server with 'Atom'
     
  7. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,935 (6.18/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,027
    You don't technically need a dedicated server to do what you want. Just use one of the PCs that are already running 24/7.

    Stick a 1TB hard drive in it, and setup the sharing on the network, it is all easy on XP Pro. And for remote access from outside of the network, a simple FTP server using FileZilla should work for what you need.
     
    Crunching for Team TPU 50 Million points folded for TPU
  8. WhiteLotus

    WhiteLotus

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Messages:
    6,536 (2.50/day)
    Thanks Received:
    847
    oh yea good point. Just set up a local network. Why did no one think of this before!

    Way to look outside the box newtekie
     
  9. Easy Rhino

    Easy Rhino Linux Advocate

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2006
    Messages:
    13,422 (4.68/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,240
    if it were me, i would build a real cheapo box and stick 2 500 gig drives in raid 0 in it with the option of adding 2 more drives down the road. then i would install the FreeNAS operating system which works very well with media devices.
     
  10. h3llb3nd4

    h3llb3nd4 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Messages:
    3,323 (1.62/day)
    Thanks Received:
    307
    Location:
    Durban, South Africa
    FreeNAS is what I would use... unless your prepared to pay for NASLite v2
     
  11. Geofrancis

    Geofrancis

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,042 (0.52/day)
    Thanks Received:
    153
    Location:
    SCOTLAND!
    a small atom server with a stripped out version of server 2003 would be perfect. or look into one of the icy box nas boxes with built in bit torrent/ftp/upnp.
     
  12. DanTheBanjoman Señor Moderator

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,553 (2.79/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,383
    That would be a really, really bad idea. She mentioned customer data and accounting, thus I'd go for a RAID 1 array. And have a third disk to make a backup.
    If budget is tight, have a single drive and a backup drive, backup regularly. (Interval depends on how often the data changes)


    As for prebuilt NAS or dedicated server, I really don't see much of a difference there.


    RAID 0 in a server with data you don't want to lose. That would be even worse.
     
  13. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,935 (6.18/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,027
    From what she described, the home server would be used as a back-up for work files. There is no reason to go with a RAID1 solution in this situation, as the data is already being stored in two places(work and home).

    If this was the dedicated server in the work environment, then I would agree RAID1 or 5 would be a must, but for a home server that will just be used for the occasional work backup, there is no need.
     
    Crunching for Team TPU 50 Million points folded for TPU
  14. DanTheBanjoman Señor Moderator

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,553 (2.79/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,383
    Ah, missed that line. Agreed, RAID1 isn't necessary. In fact, I wouldn't bother backing up my works stuff at home in the first place :)

    Still I think RAID 0 is a terrible idea, and the family pictures and the likes still require a backup. So having a backup disk is still recommended.
     
  15. Geofrancis

    Geofrancis

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,042 (0.52/day)
    Thanks Received:
    153
    Location:
    SCOTLAND!
    server 2003 with a software raid 5 array is the most flexible server as you can run utorrent, tversity(for ps3 360), video encoders, folding@home and any other programs you want. compared to say a dedicated nas that will only run what its designed to run and cant be upgraded or expanded.
     
  16. FordGT90Concept

    FordGT90Concept "I go fast!1!11!1!"

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    13,562 (6.25/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,503
    Location:
    IA, USA
    You have 3 options, really:

    1) Desktop with shared hard drive (as little as $400).

    2) NAS (around $600)--virtually the same as #1 but all the hardware is OEM.

    3) Server ($700 for the OS, $1500+ for the hardware).

    If you want to plug it in and leave it be, NAS is the way to go (no monitor, no keyboard, no mouse, just a box with NIC and power)...


    Is there a computer you usually leave on 24/7? If so, the cheapest solution would be to just buy a big hard drive, stick it in that computer, and share it. If not, the electrical costs associated with running a desktop 24/7 with network shared folders may in the long run, cost more than buying a NAS up front.


    I wouldn't even consider a server in your scenario. I was in your situation and blew $700 on Server 2003 only to be shocked by how little that $600 some extra is actually next to worthless to me.
     
    Crunching for Team TPU
  17. Geofrancis

    Geofrancis

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,042 (0.52/day)
    Thanks Received:
    153
    Location:
    SCOTLAND!
    well use a modified xp install for raid 5 i think theres a article on toms hardware guide on how to do it. and for hardware you would want a atom board as they only have a power consumption of about 35W and are dirt cheap.
     
  18. DanTheBanjoman Señor Moderator

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,553 (2.79/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,383
    Not sure where you get your numbers, but she already has a spare machine for the job. So I'd say she only has to pick the storage she requires.
     
  19. Easy Rhino

    Easy Rhino Linux Advocate

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2006
    Messages:
    13,422 (4.68/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,240
    let me correct a few things here...

    really it is less an $100 to tack on a decent USB drive and share it. but this limits you to whatever OS you are running.

    i bought a 320 gig lacie NAS media server used from newegg for 85 dollars.

    linux is free and you can build a brand new rig from newegg for under $400.
     
  20. FordGT90Concept

    FordGT90Concept "I go fast!1!11!1!"

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    13,562 (6.25/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,503
    Location:
    IA, USA
    Lemme clarify...

    $400 is appoximately $100 for OS, $100 for barebone kit, $100 for hard drive, and $100 for what ever else you need (e.g. memory, FDD, optical drive).

    I would not be inclined to let this computer run 24/7 as the parts aren't engineered to do so.



    The only NAS I would consider buying is Netgear ReadyNAS. Those run for $400-600 for the most part featuring 2 drives, RAID1. Of course they can be had for a lot less but I, personally, wouldn't go there.

    I have no problem leaving these run 24/7 because they are engineered for it.



    When I say "server," I mean "server." Specifically, that means a multi-client operating system (e.g. RedHat, Windows Server, Solaris), redundant processors (at least two-way), redundant hard drives (at least RAID1), a strong UPS, and preferrably redundant power supplies.

    Any computer can be assigned a server "role" but it is an entirely different matter to "be" a server.

    I have no problem leaving these run 24/7 as well because they are engineered for it.
     
    Crunching for Team TPU
  21. DanTheBanjoman Señor Moderator

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,553 (2.79/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,383
    The average entry level (or home, for that matter) server has no redundant PSU's, CPU's are never redundant (unless you have some really expensive hardware) and basically any modern OS can handle multiple clients. Even a UPS is overkill for a home storage server.

    You're over complicating things.
     
  22. Easy Rhino

    Easy Rhino Linux Advocate

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2006
    Messages:
    13,422 (4.68/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,240

    i'm not saying you are wrong, im saying you don't need those expensive things to have a simple home file server/backup system.
     
  23. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,935 (6.18/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,027
    They most certainly are engineered to run 24/7, and I bet most people on this site run their PCs 24/7. I know 3 of the 4 in my sig run 24/7.

    Most entry level servers are nothing more than normal desktop parts with a different OS.
     
    Crunching for Team TPU 50 Million points folded for TPU
  24. DanTheBanjoman Señor Moderator

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,553 (2.79/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,383
    OEMs like Dell, HP etc, do often use server chipsets allowing for ECC memory to be used. Apart from that they indeed are nothing special. Of course you get different software and warranty is handled different, that's basically it.
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page