Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Building a Budget Homelab NAS Server

mtlynch.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–316 of 316 posts

Re: Building a Budget Homelab NAS Server

#311

Post by eatbitseveryday »

barrkel wrote: post #284
eatbitseveryday wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Raidz needs to read all of every drive to rebuild after a drive replacement while a striped mirror only needs to read one. However if you're regularly scrubbing zfs then you read it all regularly anyway. Not quite. Each vdev rebuild uses disks within it. A pool with multiple vdev each being raidz does not need to read all disks to rebuild a single raidz vdev. Your statement compares one vdev vs many vdevs. It just…

Sure, you can build striped raidz and 3+ way mirrors and other more exotic variants but the two most typical corners of the configuration space are plain raidz2+ for all the drives vs striped mirrors. You lose usable space not putting all your drives into a single parity array and maximizing usable space is usually why you go with parity. Mixing multiple arrays only makes sense from this perspective if you have a mix…

> You lose usable space not putting all your drives into a single parity array

Well if you're aiming for a specific ratio but want greater capacity without upgrading all disks to larger capacities, your only option is to use more vdevs configured just the same.

Example: 66% usable capacity, 6 disks in a raidz2 (4 usable + 2 parity) or 9 disks in a raidz3 (6 usable + 3 parity). If you want to add capacity but maintain your parity ratio (for a given fault tolerance risk) there is no raidzN with N > 3, so you must add vdev.

Increasing the size of the raidz vdev means you're reducing your failure tolerance.

Re: Building a Budget Homelab NAS Server

#312

Post by vetinari »

zaarn wrote: post #279
semiotic1 wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They maintain their own kernel module to handle ACLs (synoacl_vfs) and they are indeed enforced locally as well. They can be read and modified by using the `synoacltool` cli. $ synoacltool -get .config ACL version: 1 Archive: is_inherit,is_support_ACL Owner: [semiotic(user)] --------------------- [0] user:semiotic:allow:rwxp-DaARWc--:fd-- (level:1) [1] group:users:allow:r-x---a-R-c--:fd-- (level:1)

Is that kernel module open source? One of the advantages of what TrueNAS did is that I can patch it into my own kernels if I'd need to. Plus being compatible to the NFSv4 ACL binary format, so it works via NFS too. Also handling Active Directory would be important there.

Not sure about the module being open-source, but running custom kernels is not really a thing on Synology. They seem to integrate SoC BSPs into kernels for each specific model, and they do not seem to port them across versions. Different models use different kernel versions in the same DSM (Synology distro) version.

The ACLs do work via NFS and it also works with Active Directory. They ship an AD implementation too, if you are interested in that (it is actually Samba in AD mode).

Re: Building a Budget Homelab NAS Server

#313

Post by zaarn »

vetinari wrote: post #312
zaarn wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that kernel module open source? One of the advantages of what TrueNAS did is that I can patch it into my own kernels if I'd need to. Plus being compatible to the NFSv4 ACL binary format, so it works via NFS too. Also handling Active Directory would be important there.

Not sure about the module being open-source, but running custom kernels is not really a thing on Synology. They seem to integrate SoC BSPs into kernels for each specific model, and they do not seem to port them across versions. Different models use different kernel versions in the same DSM (Synology distro) version. The ACLs do work via NFS and it also works with Active Directory. They ship an AD implementation too,…

Well, TrueNAS Scale isn't exactly designed to be run on a SoC, it's more of a normal linux distro for NAS/SAN Servers. Hence most of it is open source and there is active upstreaming efforts. Plus the entire ACL thing is native to ZFS already, it's just the glue layer that's missing in Linux. For Linux it's presented in an XAttr for compatibility, for Solaris it's part of the proper permission bit fields.

Re: Building a Budget Homelab NAS Server

#314

Post by tenken »

mmastrac wrote: post #104
tenken wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never do "rm prefix " in a dir. I always do "rm ./aDir/prefix " for example. This assures I'm not globbing outside a directory (or just a directory) and tries to help assure I'm not shooting my own foot. Yea, i love up 1 directory before I delete anything.

> i love up 1 directory It took me a minute, but I assume this should be "move up". This seems like a good habit.

Yes, i typed the reply on my phone and it autocorrected to that. :(

Re: Building a Budget Homelab NAS Server

#315

Post by lostmsu »

tenken wrote: post #66
eminence32 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have personally been saved by ZFS snapshots (multiple times!) because sometimes I do dumb things, like running: rm -rf tmp * Instead of: rm -rf tmp*

I never do "rm prefix " in a dir. I always do "rm ./aDir/prefix " for example. This assures I'm not globbing outside a directory (or just a directory) and tries to help assure I'm not shooting my own foot. Yea, i love up 1 directory before I delete anything.

I just never do rm. Always use GUI file manager and have 0 problems.

Re: Building a Budget Homelab NAS Server

#316

Post by lkxijlewlf »

benlivengood wrote: post #78

About 7 years ago there was an Amazon sale ($300) on Lenovo TS140 towers with the low-powered Xeon chip and ECC RAM and 4 drive bays. Ever since I've been unable to find a similar price point for the same quality, but wanted a backup server. I recently got a Raspberry Pi 4 (8GB model) and external USB hard drive (8TB) mirrored with a s3backer volume on backblaze B2 for about $300 total, and as a backup server it's fa…

My TS140 is still serving us well. It was (and still is) a heck of a deal.
Post reply on HN