New update: my current setup is a dell power edge t310 with 6x4tb SAS, zeon CPU, and 12gb ECC all parts stock. No hardware raid. 2.5gb network card. Should I just replace the 6 drives? With larger capacities? That will probably be more than $10/tb… I didn’t buy the 16 drives yet, they are used SAS drives 4tb each, turn to be about $40 each.

Current storage 8tb used out of 14… And lots of cold drives waiting to get copied… 10tb+ probably. Is it worth copying all the cold storage drives to the redundant nas.

Update: budget(200-600), the reason for the build is I found cheap 4tb drives for almost $10/Terabyte. So I want to use as much of them as I can

I am trying to build my final NAS build as a beginner.

I have a 6x4tb dell server, but it’s not enough.

I am currently trying to build the final boss of my nasses. 4x16tb with truenas with raid

I am unsure of what parts to buy as I am a complete beginner.

I found a case that can hold all 14 drives.

I need a motherboard, CPU, ram, PSU

I am on a budget, kind of.

What motherboard do you recommend? Pulled from a workstations with CPU and ram? A server board? Normal consumer with normal consumer CPU? Motherboard should have some pcie slots for 2 sata cards and one 2.5 GB card.

What CPU to run all these drives?

What ram and how much? 16? 32? Ecc, non ecc? Ddr4? Ddr3?

Power supply: 850w or more?

All parts should be able to support the 16 drives with headroom…

I would appreciate any help on this build, I want to build this as soon as possible.

Thanks

    • JGrffn@lemmy.worldEnglish
      37·
      13 天前

      I also went with 16 drives, but they were 20TB each. OP, if you don’t already have those 4tb drives, reconsider the amount and sizes. 4tb can’t be the price sweet spot for HDDs…

      • Humanius@lemmy.worldEnglish
        10·
        13 天前

        It would seem that the sweet spot for HDDs is as high as 16 to 24 TB at the moment (at least here in the Netherlands).
        You can get a 24TB Seagate Barracuda for €479,- right now, which comes out to about €20 / TB.

        If you specifically want a NAS drive though the best “bang for the buck” appears to be a 28TB Seagate IronWolf Pro for €688,- coming out to about €25 / TB.

        Edit: Personally I run 8TB drives in my server, which are currently €209,- (€26 / TB) for a regular Seagate Barracuda, and €289 (€36 / TB) for a Seagate IronWolf Pro. Funnily enough 4TB drives would actually be better for NAS drives at €132,90 (€33 / TB) for a WD Red Plus.

      • Gork@sopuli.xyzEnglish
        61·
        13 天前

        If I ever got a lucky Amazon mistake where I order one 4 TB drive but a box of 16 comes in, I would set up a full *arr stack.

        Probably won’t be that lucky though.

      • Belazor@lemmy.zipEnglish
        1·
        16 小时前

        Bro I can quit adding things to Sonarr whenever I want I just need one more drive bro last time bro I swear bro

    • ulterno@programming.devEnglish
      0·
      13 天前

      Fix it by simply turning off “Low Disk Space” warnings in System Settings.
      Mix that with keeping your / and your home cache, local, share etc directories in a non-data drive and you get no warnings. Only errors when a write fails.

    • frongt@lemmy.zipEnglish
      72·
      13 天前

      I would seek the best price per terabyte while still allowing redundancy.

      • hesh@quokk.auEnglish
        1·
        13 天前

        True, but I would factor in some kind of negative to cost/longevity from increasing number of drives. Even if 16x4 is a bit cheaper than 4x16 today, will it die faster?

        • frongt@lemmy.zipEnglish
          32·
          13 天前

          At these scales, I don’t think it’s measurable, if statistically significant at all.

          In any case, you should always be ready to replace a drive that fails. I buy used because they’re significantly cheaper (or at least they used to be) and I’ve never had any major failures.

          • Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafeEnglish
            2·
            13 天前

            And while more drives means more failure opportunity, it also means when a failed drive is replaced, it’s likely of a different manufacture period.

            I have a 5-drive NAS that I’ve been upgrading single drives every 6 months. This has the benefit of slowly increasing capacity while also ensuring drives are of different ages so less likely to fail simultaneously. (Now I’m waiting for prices to come back down, dammit).

  • atzanteol@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    142·
    13 天前

    You’re talking a lot of storage - it might be worth investing in some low-end server hardware. A Dell tower or something, maybe one off eBay if you’re looking to cut costs.

    I picked up a PowerEdge T110II a long time ago and it’s been… flawless. Just a simple server with a 4x4TB RAID5. No hardware problems (aside from occasional disk failures over the years), easy to manage. It costs a bit more - but server hardware is often just more reliable and for a NAS that’s job #1. This server just runs.

    I just upgraded the memory in it to 32GB for ~$100USD. Before that it had 8GB. I needed more for restic doing backups. I probably could have gotten away with 16GB but I figured I’d max it out for that price.

  • vane@lemmy.worldEnglish
    121·
    13 天前

    It’s better to buy 4x 16-20TB drives and expand storage instead of buying 16 4TB drives. Also 16 3.5 inch HDD drives draw around 200W of power alone.

  • blitzen@lemmy.caEnglish
    10·
    13 天前

    Honestly, I bet it would be cheaper to replace a few or even all of the 4 TB drives in your current set up with larger drives.

  • farcaller@fstab.shEnglish
    91·
    13 天前

    You really want the ECC ram and the motherboard/cpu combo that supports it.

  • Shimitar@downonthestreet.euEnglish
    81·
    13 天前

    I wouldn’t use more than 4 or 6 disks in a home environment. Specially with mechanical drivers, power consumption 24/7 would get me very worried.

    I run 4 x 8Tb SSDs, not cheap, but solid, low power AND low heat (even more important).

    Consider also heat dissipation as most likely at home you don’t have a constant temperature and humidity, so many spinning disks can suffer from heat, and that will kill them faster

    Longevity… With so much space I would expect to keep it running a decade or more… So factor in 10x365x24 hours of operation, energy consumed, heat dissipation and failure rate.

    On top of that, whatever gpu and ram you throw at it is meaningless, whatever wi work, even an Intel n100 NUC. Having enough cables and port instead… Well.

    • Something Burger 🍔@jlai.luEnglish
      71·
      13 天前

      20W/drive means 30x24x0.2 kWh each month for 10 drives. At 0.20€/kWh, that’s 28€/month, cheaper than a 20TB Hetzner box. That’s assuming all drives are always spinning, as an idle drive uses more like 5W.

      • Shimitar@downonthestreet.euEnglish
        2·
        12 天前

        10x4tb = 40tb can be achieved with 4 12tb drives (actually 36tb in raid5) .

        Doubtfully those 12tb uses much more power than the 4tb ones, each. So the 28€/m probably cut down to 14,€/m counted in excess.

        Considering 120m (10y) of uptime, you should save enough to justify cutting down from 10 to 4 drives.

        • Passerby6497@lemmy.worldEnglish
          22·
          12 天前

          But going with more smaller drives gives you higher IO and the ability to have more concurrent failures before disaster. Losing a disk during resilvering is horrible when you’re only running with 1 redundant drive normally.

          • Shimitar@downonthestreet.euEnglish
            2·
            12 天前

            Yes, more redindancy is good and indeed worth having. Still 5 12tb drives are probably yet more energy and heat efficient than 10 4tb ones.

            Even if I had 10 4tb for free I wouldn’t use them. Maybe a couple for backup reasons or cold storage, but not active 24/7 for a domestic raid environment.

            I actually have 4 6tb hdds that I dismissed for the 4 8tb sdds, and I use two for local backup and keep two spares to replace them when they will fail.

            4 8tb in raid5 provide 24tb total space that its far more than I need, and the risk of a double failure is mitogated by a proper 3,2,1 backup strategy in place

            As for the higher I/o frankly I never felt the need. 1gbps home network is always the bottleneck anyway and if you require such disk troughput on your network, you are doing something wrong anyway.

            Even many 4k video streams would sturate your lan before saturating your disks unless you store uncompressed video streams.

  • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    71·
    13 天前

    Honestly, you might want to look into proper server hardware. There are many out there that support dozens of drives, assuming you’re willing to go with a blade. Even if you explicitly want a tower, server hardware is where you’re going to get the best support.

    You’ll most likely also want to increase the size of your drives. Assuming you’re being smart and utilizing RAID, you’re going to be losing a bunch of that storage.

  • Q@piefed.socialEnglish
    51·
    13 天前

    That sounds like a nightmare tbh. So many failure points, so much heat and power usage, and cables.

    I have 6 out of 8 bays filled and still feel like it’s a lot to worry about and manage if something fails.

  • Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafeEnglish
    3·
    13 天前

    Others have mentioned power - you may want to do some math on drive cost vs power consumption. There’ll be a drive size point that is worth the cost because you’ll use fewer drives which consume less power than more drives.

    Having built a number of systems, I’m a LOT more conscious of power draw today for things that will run 24/7. Like my ancient NAS draws about 15 watts at idle with 5 drives (It will spin down drives).

    More drives will always mean more power, so maybe fewer but larger drives makes sense. You may pay more up front, but monthly power costs never go away.

    Also, I’ve built a 10 drive n NAS like this (because I had the drives and the case, mono and ram). It can produce a lot if heat while doing anything, and it was a significant power hog - like 200w when running. And it really didn’t idle very well (I’ve run it with UnRaid, TruNAS and Proxmox).

  • BlackEco@lemmy.blackeco.comEnglish
    3·
    13 天前

    What’s the case? Does it has the ability to hot-swap drives (even with a side panel off)? It can come really handy if one of your drives fails.

  • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    2·
    13 天前

    ABSOLUTELY ECC memory, 32gb or higher if you can afford it these days as TrueNAS does benefit from a decent cache space, especially with so many drives to spread data slices across.

    Realistically unless you expect multiple concurrent users, any 4 core or higher CPU from 2015-on will be plenty of power to manage the array. No need for dedicated server hardware unless the price is right

    I have a Dell PowerEdge t3 SOHO/small business server tower that I gutted and turned into a 5x8tb config. It only has a middling 4 core Xeon 1225v5 and I never get above 50% CPU usage when maxing the drives out. More CPU is needed if you’re doing filesystem compression or need multiple concurrent users.

    • Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafeEnglish
      3·
      13 天前

      I’ve never run into issues running desktop hardware without ECC as servers - since the 90’s.

      I just don’t think the extra cost is worthwhile - I’m not running systems/services that will have catastrophic failures without ECC (or have weird bitflips that would corrupt some transaction).

      • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        1·
        12 天前

        I’ve never ran into issues either, but generally in any situation where data integrity is somewhat important, ECC is a very good idea. Its never a problem until suddenly it is.

        I don’t give a crap about my Minecraft server having ECC, but a storage server where cached data gets written to disk, I’d rather have ECC ensure nothing gets corrupted.