121–130 of 308 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a nuc but how do I connect 6 hdds to it?
Add a disk shelf :). Basically supplies power and data cabling for just a rack of drives. Those get interfaced with the NUC via a host based adapter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Add a disk shelf :). Basically supplies power and data cabling for just a rack of drives. Those get interfaced with the NUC via a host based adapter.
Can you elaborate? What’s the economic way to do this?
The PC's PSU will need SATA power on its cables or else you'll need to scavenge a separate PSU and use the paper clip trick (or better yet, a purpose built connector) to get it to power things on without a motherboard connected.
Once you have all of that, then it's just a matter of housing the disks. People have done this with everything from threaded rod and plastidip to 3D printed disk racks to used enterprise JBOD enclosures (Just a Bunch Of Disks, no joke).
Total cost for this setup, excluding the disks, can easily be done for less than $200 if you're patient and look for local deals, like a Craiglist post for a bunch of old server hardware that says "free, just come haul it away".
Check or r/DataHoarder on reddit or ServeTheHome's blog
When people set up these NAS's, how are they accessing the files? NFS? SFTP? And how are you accessing it when away from home? A VPN that you're permanently connected to? Is there a good way to do NAT hole-punching? Syncthing kind of does what I want, in that it lets all my computers sync the same files no matter what network they're on, but it insists on always copying all the files ("syncing") whereas I just want t…
Regarding the connectivity: tailscale... So far I am happy with them and the free plan hasn't been kneecapped afterwards (so far).
I barely use my tailnet now, might have more of a case for it later, but they are near the top of my "wishing you success but please don't get acquired by a company that will ruin it" list.
The entire concept of network attached storage is kind of cargo-cult in the vast majority of personal use cases. Just put the drives in your computer. Fewer abstraction layers, fewer problems, cheaper, faster, less fragile, easier to debug and fix if problems do happen. It's just not as hip or cool sounding as "NAS".
A NAS is nice for serving local media files to a smart TV. That’s my main use case.
Right now I have Plex running on a raspberry pi hooked up to an 8tb external HDD. Works fine, but I want to scale up to the 100-200TB range of storage, and it feels like the market is pushing me towards spending an inordinate amount of money on this. Don't understand why it's so expensive.
When people set up these NAS's, how are they accessing the files? NFS? SFTP? And how are you accessing it when away from home? A VPN that you're permanently connected to? Is there a good way to do NAT hole-punching? Syncthing kind of does what I want, in that it lets all my computers sync the same files no matter what network they're on, but it insists on always copying all the files ("syncing") whereas I just want t…
Synology does all that. I run two one at home one at the office, my only complaint is that it’s a bit “idiot proof”… both other times the web based GUIi is great. Also has free software that punches through NAT and dynamic IPs works great (quickconnect.to) I use sftp, media server, primarily
Ignorant person question here: “why they make NAS servers without ECC memory?”
Because they barely do anything. It's like like there's 4TB of RAM in there churning away at multiple databases. It's debatable if you even need it in enterprise servers.
Everyone is an expert at storage as long as everything is working great. It's when stuff fails that you feel like an idiot and wished you had one extra hdd in your RAID array or a secondary NAS you were backing up to or one extra site you offloaded your data to. I don't do cheap any more. But I can see the appeal.
Business documents, accounting records, family photos - sure you probably want to keep them safe.
But if my NAS is just 20TB of pirated movies and TV shows (not that I'm saying it is...) then I'm much more comfortable buying the cheapest drives I can find and seeing how it goes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A NAS is nice for serving local media files to a smart TV. That’s my main use case.
The thing I don't get is, why do I need to drop $1000 on a Synology machine just to do this? Let's say I want to create a setup with 8x18TB drives or something, do I really need to spend $1000 just to make this accessible to a couple clients at once (say a smart TV + another machine in the house)? Right now I have Plex running on a raspberry pi hooked up to an 8tb external HDD. Works fine, but I want to scale up to t…
With my NAS, I pay for the box, install the drives, and it Just Works with basically no maintenance other than me clicking the upgrade button every few months when it emails me that an OS update is ready.
I could build a similar system myself, but the hardware isn't that much cheaper. Cases, PSUs, hot swappable drive mounts, and all that add up quickly. And when I'm done, I have to install the OS, read the docs to see how the recommended configuration has changed since last time I did this, and periodically log in to look at it because it doesn't have nearly as much monitoring set up out-of-the-box.
Given the choice between the small amount of money I'd save vs the amount of time I'd have to invest in it, I'd rather pay the money and outsource the hassle to the NAS maker.
As to why I don't just hang a bunch of drives off the computer I'm already using:
- Backups. If my Mac dies, I can restore it from the Time Machine on my NAS.
- Noise. The NAS has busier fans than my Mac. It's in a different room from where I spend most of my time.
- I run Docker stuff on it. I don't want those things running 24/7 on my desktop.
- Availability. I want to reboot my desktop occasionally without worrying if it'd interrupt my wife watching something on Plex.