3:46 a.m.
Dear Fedoers,
I'm planning to buy a NAS to backup my Linux boxes. I've spent few days at
looking for it on the Internet but I've some hard time to find a NAS that fits
my needs.
I intend to use it both the backup my data but also to keep consistent the
data on several linux-boxes. That is, the data are changed on one machine
(incrementally) back-upped and then restored from another one and vice versa.
As an inexperienced user, the characteristics I've pointed out are:
- ethernet based NAS optionally with wake-on lan (ie., the capability of
being turned on by a signal over the internet)
- Linux compliant ie.,
- it should be formatted in ext3/4 or other *nix file system to maintain all
the linux file details such as access rights, attributes, links, name
lengths/characters, ...
- rsync should be a viable solution to update/restore the backup
- files should be accessible over the internet possibly via ssh, https, or
mount over the internet
- possibility to create multiple partitions, possibly also with multiple
file systems.
- RAID 5 or better the supported replicated storage should be at least 5TB
- optionally I would also like to have some way to limit/control/monitor
the accesses from the external, eg., via firewall (it will be on a
intranet and I can put a firewall on the modem but it would be nice to
have some extra control over security and privacy)
I do not have a net preference between mechanical and optical storage even
if I suppose that given the same storage size mechanical solutions are cheaper
and optical ones are faster. Probably cheaper (especially when associated with
more reliable) is better than faster.
From your experience do you have some brand/model to suggest? Or something
that I should consider that I didn't list?
Thank you in advance for your help.
Walter
--
4:05 a.m.
Hello Walter,
I've been running a Synology NAS (DS718+ with two 1TB SSDs) for the past 2 years and
I'm pleased with it.
It's mostly closed source but:
* Provides SSH access (with root), so I run Docker on it and all my media management
tools
* Runs on btrfs (https://www.synology.com/en-uk/dsm/Btrfs)
* Exports via WebDAV, NFS, SMB, AFS out of the box
* Has a package manager and a community repository
* Web interface
* It's very common place, so it's easy to find support and help if need be
I've enabled the rsync service on it, I use that to backup my Linux workstation, and
nightly my NAS backs itself up with rsync.net in Switzerland, for disaster recovery.
If you want something that works out of the box and is hackable, without having to install
FreeNAS yourself, I would suggest to look into it.
(I'm not affiliated with them, just a happy user.)
Stephane
On Thu, 2 Dec 2021, at 09:46, Walter Cazzola wrote:
> Dear Fedoers,
>
> I'm planning to buy a NAS to backup my Linux boxes. I've spent few days at
> looking for it on the Internet but I've some hard time to find a NAS that fits
> my needs.
>
> I intend to use it both the backup my data but also to keep consistent the
> data on several linux-boxes. That is, the data are changed on one machine
> (incrementally) back-upped and then restored from another one and vice versa.
>
> As an inexperienced user, the characteristics I've pointed out are:
> - ethernet based NAS optionally with wake-on lan (ie., the
> capability of
> being turned on by a signal over the internet)
> - Linux compliant ie.,
> - it should be formatted in ext3/4 or other *nix file system to
> maintain all
> the linux file details such as access rights, attributes,
> links, name
> lengths/characters, ...
> - rsync should be a viable solution to update/restore the backup
> - files should be accessible over the internet possibly via ssh,
> https, or
> mount over the internet
> - possibility to create multiple partitions, possibly also with
> multiple
> file systems.
> - RAID 5 or better the supported replicated storage should be at
> least 5TB
> - optionally I would also like to have some way to
> limit/control/monitor
> the accesses from the external, eg., via firewall (it will be on a
> intranet and I can put a firewall on the modem but it would be
> nice to
> have some extra control over security and privacy)
>
> I do not have a net preference between mechanical and optical storage even
> if I suppose that given the same storage size mechanical solutions are cheaper
> and optical ones are faster. Probably cheaper (especially when associated with
> more reliable) is better than faster.
>
> From your experience do you have some brand/model to suggest? Or something
> that I should consider that I didn't list?
>
> Thank you in advance for your help.
>
> Walter
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
5:40 a.m.
Hello Walter,
On Thu, 02 Dec 2021 10:05:19 +0000 "Stephane Travostino" <steph(a)combo.cc>
wrote:
I've been running a Synology NAS (DS718+ with two 1TB SSDs) for
the past 2 years and I'm pleased with it.
It's mostly closed source but:
* Provides SSH access (with root), so I run Docker on it and all my media management
tools
* Runs on btrfs (https://www.synology.com/en-uk/dsm/Btrfs)
* Exports via WebDAV, NFS, SMB, AFS out of the box
* Has a package manager and a community repository
* Web interface
* It's very common place, so it's easy to find support and help if need be
I've enabled the rsync service on it, I use that to backup my Linux workstation, and
nightly my NAS backs itself up with rsync.net in Switzerland, for disaster recovery.
If you want something that works out of the box and is hackable, without having to
install FreeNAS yourself, I would suggest to look into it.
(I'm not affiliated with them, just a happy user.)
Same here with a QNAP TS-251a (ext4fs on disks in RAID arrays), rsync
over ssh (root) over ethernet (or wifi). It's not out of the box: a bit
of configuration to install rsync on it from third-party package and
setup everything, including a rsync-based script on machines to backup,
but nothing you can't learn.
All my machine here are backed up on it.
Regards,
On Thu, 2 Dec 2021, at 09:46, Walter Cazzola wrote:
> Dear Fedoers,
>
> I'm planning to buy a NAS to backup my Linux boxes. I've spent few
> days at looking for it on the Internet but I've some hard time to
> find a NAS that fits my needs.
>
> I intend to use it both the backup my data but also to keep
> consistent the data on several linux-boxes. That is, the data are
> changed on one machine (incrementally) back-upped and then restored
> from another one and vice versa.
>
> As an inexperienced user, the characteristics I've pointed out are:
> - ethernet based NAS optionally with wake-on lan (ie., the
> capability of
> being turned on by a signal over the internet)
> - Linux compliant ie.,
> - it should be formatted in ext3/4 or other *nix file system
> to maintain all
> the linux file details such as access rights, attributes,
> links, name
> lengths/characters, ...
> - rsync should be a viable solution to update/restore the
> backup
> - files should be accessible over the internet possibly via ssh,
> https, or
> mount over the internet
> - possibility to create multiple partitions, possibly also with
> multiple
> file systems.
> - RAID 5 or better the supported replicated storage should be at
> least 5TB
> - optionally I would also like to have some way to
> limit/control/monitor
> the accesses from the external, eg., via firewall (it will be
> on a intranet and I can put a firewall on the modem but it would be
> nice to
> have some extra control over security and privacy)
>
> I do not have a net preference between mechanical and optical
> storage even if I suppose that given the same storage size
> mechanical solutions are cheaper and optical ones are faster.
> Probably cheaper (especially when associated with more reliable) is
> better than faster.
>
> From your experience do you have some brand/model to suggest? Or
> something that I should consider that I didn't list?
>
> Thank you in advance for your help.
>
> Walter
--
wwp
https://useplaintext.email/
5:32 a.m.
On Thu, 2021-12-02 at 10:46 +0100, Walter Cazzola wrote:
- Linux compliant ie.,
- it should be formatted in ext3/4 or other *nix file system
to maintain all the linux file details such as access rights,
attributes, links, name lengths/characters, ...
I used to use WD MyBook and MyCloud NAS devices, and while it offered
NFS access, it's normal way for you to use it was for everything to get
dumped into in an all-user location, owned by root on the disk drive,
with access restrictions (mis)handled through the networking file
system. It seemed the same hairbrained scheme for SMB.
If you SSHd in and set up your own directories, it could work like NFS
normally did on Linux. Mind you, after any reboot or power outage, I'd
have to SSH in and chown my parent directory back to me from root.
I'd disabled most of their shovelware, to make thing less painful. But
my last delve into removing the crud managed to brick it.
So... I'd avoid those kind of devices.
If you have a network of PCs, it might be easiest to dedicate one of
them as your fileserver, and roll-your-own. Keep a separate drive for
the OS from all your data, that makes upgrading the OS easier and safer
(just unplug your data drive beforehand). This is what I've done for a
several years (a Linux server).
--
uname -rsvp
Linux 3.10.0-1160.45.1.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Oct 13 17:20:51 UTC 2021 x86_64
Boilerplate: All unexpected mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted.
I will only get to see the messages that are posted to the mailing list.
5:44 a.m.
Hello,
On Thu, 02 Dec 2021 22:02:39 +1030 Tim via users <users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
wrote:
On Thu, 2021-12-02 at 10:46 +0100, Walter Cazzola wrote:
> - Linux compliant ie.,
> - it should be formatted in ext3/4 or other *nix file system
> to maintain all the linux file details such as access rights,
> attributes, links, name lengths/characters, ...
I used to use WD MyBook and MyCloud NAS devices, and while it offered
NFS access, it's normal way for you to use it was for everything to get
dumped into in an all-user location, owned by root on the disk drive,
with access restrictions (mis)handled through the networking file
system. It seemed the same hairbrained scheme for SMB.
If you SSHd in and set up your own directories, it could work like NFS
normally did on Linux. Mind you, after any reboot or power outage, I'd
have to SSH in and chown my parent directory back to me from root.
I'd disabled most of their shovelware, to make thing less painful. But
my last delve into removing the crud managed to brick it.
So... I'd avoid those kind of devices.
If you have a network of PCs, it might be easiest to dedicate one of
them as your fileserver, and roll-your-own. Keep a separate drive for
the OS from all your data, that makes upgrading the OS easier and safer
(just unplug your data drive beforehand). This is what I've done for a
several years (a Linux server).
Before I switched to a QNAP-based hardware solution (see my former
reply to this thread), I was using a dedicated minimum-config file
server running Linux, a Zotac mini-PC (small, cheap and no noise) with
an external RAID disk enclosure. I must admit that it's barely the same
amount of configuration and setup, at the end, and the pros of
NAS-based solution come with their cons anyway.
Regards,
--
wwp
https://useplaintext.email/
8:15 a.m.
6:15 p.m.
On Thu, 2021-12-02 at 15:15 +0100, Germano Massullo wrote:
One of the surprises I got from building a basic server out of a
standard motherboard was its relatively low power usage (I measured it,
I'm not going by the labels on the equipment). There's just the
motherboard, no plugged in cards. The fans are temperature controlled,
so very quiet (some cases make fan motor noise much worse by resonating
along with it).
The non-surprise is that you can put on it what you want. Prebuilt NAS
devices are limited to what they provide and allow. Some have a very
short lifespan, in various ways (software updates, heat death of
components, just to name two).
Here's another thought: If you're thinking of a NAS as a way to handle
off-site backups (moving the NAS here, to there, keeping it in a
different place than your original data), some of them are not very
robust.
--
uname -rsvp
Linux 3.10.0-1160.45.1.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Oct 13 17:20:51 UTC 2021 x86_64
Boilerplate: All unexpected mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted.
I will only get to see the messages that are posted to the mailing list.
8:35 a.m.
On Fri, 2021-12-03 at 10:45 +1030, Tim via users wrote:
One of the surprises I got from building a basic server out of a
standard motherboard was its relatively low power usage (I measured
it, I'm not going by the labels on the equipment).
An older message, but I realised I didn't say what my readings were,
and didn't get around to filling them in earlier on. And it may be
useful to other people thinking about NASs vs PCs.
1.1 watts when everything is shut down and waiting on standby
25 watts when the PC is idling
30 watts when mildly busy
60 watts when firing up Firefox (with a lot of tabs)
and Evolution checking for new mail, simultaneously
This is a fairly ordinary motherboard from a few years ago (ASRock
B250M Pro4) with an i5-7600 quad core CPU running at 3.5GHz at full
tilt, but down to 800 MHz when resting, I have left the CPU speed being
automatically controlled without me customising it), two 8 gig RAM
sticks, a hard disc drive, mouse and keyboard. Pretty much a minimum
basic PC setup.
There may be some small NAS devices that use less power, but I don't
think it's going to be significantly less power usage to care about all
that much, whereas a normal computer does whatever you want it to do,
can be a lot easier to manage, and update software. One extra issue I
have to care about with NAS devices, being in a very hot country, is
that many have no cooling fans.
It's scary when you see PCs with 500 watt power supplies (or the
hardware manuals saying you need one), but they don't use 500 watts all
the time, if at all. It's just their capability. The main idea is
that a beefy power supply doesn't have any problems when everything
cold boots. Probably the only thing that's really going to cause the
average user's PC to use a lot of power is gaming with fancy on-the-fly
graphics rendering.
1:45 p.m.
On Wed, 22 Dec 2021 at 10:36, Tim via users <users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
wrote:
On Fri, 2021-12-03 at 10:45 +1030, Tim via users wrote:
[...]
It's scary when you see PCs with 500 watt power supplies (or the
hardware manuals saying you need one), but they don't use 500
watts all
the time, if at all. It's just their capability. The main idea is
that a beefy power supply doesn't have any problems when everything
cold boots. Probably the only thing that's really going to cause the
average user's PC to use a lot of power is gaming with fancy on-the-fly
graphics rendering.
Spinning up a bunch of rotating media disks can be a problem booting. Even
if the server has a big power supply, your UPS may not handle the load. I
used
get around that by booting from a small disk and manually mounting the RAID
array. Newer disks do use a fraction of the power of older models. but
lower prices just mean people stuff boxes with as many drives as it can
hold. Maybe current systems are smarter about staging drive startup.
It isn't only gaming that that is power hungry -- vendors have to consider
a
range of use cases. My group at work once got the loan of a high-end Dell
workstation that had been used as a node in a large numerical model. On
boot the system immediately started heavy numerical processing and
the 1.4 KVA UPS cut it off. The manual said it needed 1200 VA power.
Fortunately we had a 3KVA UPS originally used for deskside SGI "mini-super"
system.
--
George N. White III
3:02 p.m.
Usually a spinning disk need about 1amp at 12v to spin up each disk. I
have had to upsize a power supply because the original ps was no longer
quit big enough after the disks had aged and increased startup current
closer to the max specified for the disk. Max x disks was a few amps over
the ps rating, but worked when the disks were new.
If your 3kva ups shuts off on a 1.2kva load that means it has a battery
with at least one dead cell in it. If multiple new batteries are in it you
need a load tester to put a load on the batteries and see which one has a
low voltage. I have had to do that on a 7.5kva/4×12v system and at idle
all 4 batteries voltages look about the same, but under load one battery
was about 2v low. My batteries were under 12 month warranty still so i
was able to get a new one sent.
On Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 2:46 PM George N. White III <gnwiii(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Dec 2021 at 10:36, Tim via users <users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
wrote:
> On Fri, 2021-12-03 at 10:45 +1030, Tim via users wrote:
> [...]
It's scary when you see PCs with 500 watt power supplies (or the
> hardware manuals saying you need one), but they don't use 500 watts all
> the time, if at all. It's just their capability. The main idea is
> that a beefy power supply doesn't have any problems when everything
> cold boots. Probably the only thing that's really going to cause the
> average user's PC to use a lot of power is gaming with fancy on-the-fly
> graphics rendering.
>
Spinning up a bunch of rotating media disks can be a problem booting. Even
if the server has a big power supply, your UPS may not handle the load. I
used
get around that by booting from a small disk and manually mounting the RAID
array. Newer disks do use a fraction of the power of older models. but
lower prices just mean people stuff boxes with as many drives as it can
hold. Maybe current systems are smarter about staging drive startup.
It isn't only gaming that that is power hungry -- vendors have to consider
a
range of use cases. My group at work once got the loan of a high-end Dell
workstation that had been used as a node in a large numerical model. On
boot the system immediately started heavy numerical processing and
the 1.4 KVA UPS cut it off. The manual said it needed 1200 VA power.
Fortunately we had a 3KVA UPS originally used for deskside SGI
"mini-super"
system.
--
George N. White III
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
4:54 p.m.
On Wed, 22 Dec 2021 at 17:05, Roger Heflin <rogerheflin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Usually a spinning disk need about 1amp at 12v to spin up each disk.
I
have had to upsize a power supply because the original ps was no longer
quit big enough after the disks had aged and increased startup current
closer to the max specified for the disk. Max x disks was a few amps over
the ps rating, but worked when the disks were new.
I'm not surprised, but I learned to replace disks at end-of-warranty. In
the early years not many lasted the warranty period with our workloads
(constantly filling and emptying disks), but now manufacturers have got
things dialed in so the failure rate soars after end-of-warranty. (Ferrups)
If your 3kva ups shuts off on a 1.2kva load that means it has a battery
with at least one dead cell in it. If multiple new batteries are in it you
need a load tester to put a load on the batteries and see which one has a
low voltage. I have had to do that on a 7.5kva/4×12v system and at idle
all 4 batteries voltages look about the same, but under load one battery
was about 2v low. My batteries were under 12 month warranty still so i
was able to get a new one sent.
For the mission-critical systems we used BEST Ferrups (retired from
sea-duty) and then APC. Both had good battery tests and we ran them
regularly because a UPS failure could mean losing irreplaceable satellite
downlink data (corollary to Murphy's Law -- power is most likely to fail
during time-critical processing stages)..
It was the 1.4 KVA UPS that rejected the startup load. The 3KVA unit
actually had new batteries configured well below maximum capacity because
we only needed it to hold up long enough to be sure the generator had come
online before starting a shutdown.
On Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 2:46 PM George N. White III <gnwiii(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2021 at 10:36, Tim via users <
> users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2021-12-03 at 10:45 +1030, Tim via users wrote:
>> [...]
>
> It's scary when you see PCs with 500 watt power supplies (or the
>> hardware manuals saying you need one), but they don't use 500 watts all
>> the time, if at all. It's just their capability. The main idea is
>> that a beefy power supply doesn't have any problems when everything
>> cold boots. Probably the only thing that's really going to cause the
>> average user's PC to use a lot of power is gaming with fancy on-the-fly
>> graphics rendering.
>>
>
> Spinning up a bunch of rotating media disks can be a problem booting.
> Even
> if the server has a big power supply, your UPS may not handle the load.
> I used
> get around that by booting from a small disk and manually mounting the
> RAID
> array. Newer disks do use a fraction of the power of older models. but
> lower prices just mean people stuff boxes with as many drives as it can
> hold. Maybe current systems are smarter about staging drive startup.
>
> It isn't only gaming that that is power hungry -- vendors have to
> consider a
> range of use cases. My group at work once got the loan of a high-end
> Dell
> workstation that had been used as a node in a large numerical model. On
> boot the system immediately started heavy numerical processing and
> the 1.4 KVA UPS cut it off. The manual said it needed 1200 VA power.
> Fortunately we had a 3KVA UPS originally used for deskside SGI
> "mini-super"
> system.
>
>
--
George N. White III
8:30 a.m.
On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 10:46:30 +0100 (CET)
Walter Cazzola wrote:
From your experience do you have some brand/model to suggest? Or
something
that I should consider that I didn't list?
I'm not sure it hits all your points, but I have a NAS I made
from an old PC that happened to have a lot of disk bays and
SATA ports. I run TrueNAS on it, which is a bit of a learning
curve since it is FreeBSD based, not linux, but fairly similar.
At installation time it was able to RAID all the disks together
to make huge filesystem.
I've set up a "jail" on it and configured all my local LAN systems
with host based access so they can run rsync in cron to do backups
without any manual intervention to load keys and such. I have
a backup script that uses the --link rsync option so every backup
has a complete copy of everything with unchanged files shared
via hard link to the previous backup. Seems to work pretty well.
I'm also moving all the DVDs and such to a PLEX server running
in another jail so I can stream to things around the house tha
can run a PLEX client (which is pretty much everything these days).
11:02 a.m.
I have always built my own and ran it on the main machine I use for
other services (homeassistant, security cams, wind speed monitoring).
The canned solutions have less upfront setup but if/when anything
goes wrong generally you are on your own, and you don't have any idea
how the vendor setup it up, and how old of kernel/tools that they
used.
A number of NAS uses in that situation have ended up on the mdadm list
working through how to recover from the failure and not lose data.
On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 8:30 AM Tom Horsley <horsley1953(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 10:46:30 +0100 (CET)
> Walter Cazzola wrote:
>
> > From your experience do you have some brand/model to suggest? Or something
> > that I should consider that I didn't list?
>
> I'm not sure it hits all your points, but I have a NAS I made
> from an old PC that happened to have a lot of disk bays and
> SATA ports. I run TrueNAS on it, which is a bit of a learning
> curve since it is FreeBSD based, not linux, but fairly similar.
> At installation time it was able to RAID all the disks together
> to make huge filesystem.
>
> I've set up a "jail" on it and configured all my local LAN systems
> with host based access so they can run rsync in cron to do backups
> without any manual intervention to load keys and such. I have
> a backup script that uses the --link rsync option so every backup
> has a complete copy of everything with unchanged files shared
> via hard link to the previous backup. Seems to work pretty well.
>
> I'm also moving all the DVDs and such to a PLEX server running
> in another jail so I can stream to things around the house tha
> can run a PLEX client (which is pretty much everything these days).
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
1:47 p.m.
I've used Thecus NAS's for many years, recommended them to co-workers and friends
seeking the same kinds of solutions. Back when I was looking to go way beyond local
USB-connected hard drives for my home network, I did my own research into what existed for
NAS solutions at the time (2010-2011). I had looked into QNAP, WD World, Synology,
FreeNAS, etc...
FWIW, I bought my first NAS from Thecus, the N7700SAS with seven 2TB drives in 2011. I
used RAID5 with approximately 11T of storage. The N7700SAS NAS is still operational, with
about 98% uptime (in the last year it has begun to shut itself off on its own
periodically). Other than that, it has been ROCK solid. Since then I've bought the
N5550 (five drive bays) in 2017 and have five 14TB drives in it, under RAID5. Again, it
is rock solid and I've been running it at 99.99+ uptime. It meets all your bullets
(which I've numbered), with the following caveats:- Bullet 3: that is up to how you
allow access to the NAS via your firewall/network topology.
- Bullet 6: that too is up to how you allow access to the NAS via your firewall/network
topology.
Thecus does a really good job of testing and validating a variety of memory and hard drive
configurations; and they also provide insights into drives they've tested/recommend,
and those they do NOT recommend (and usually why); same for memory chips. They keep their
compatibility guides up to date. For the N5810, you can, for example use five Western
Digital Red Wolf Pro drives with a capacity of 18TB each. I use the raid calculator site
(raid-calculator.com) to test out various RAID vs size comparisons.
You can buy the Thecus n5810 tower 'shell' and separately purchase/supply the
drives you want. Currently the n5810 and n5810PRO are viable options. The distinction is
that the PRO version has a built-on UPS. You'll have to evaluate for yourself the
value of that configuration. Additionally, they have other SOHO options (the n4350 and
n2350; in four and two drive form-factors, respectively).
This is a spinning-disk solution, by the way. Though Thecus has begun to build/test NAS
solutions with SSD's, I've not yet seen a viable high-capacity SSD-based NAS from
them---though still looking and hopeful.
Were I going to purchase another NAS today, I'd go with the N5810.It is kinda
difficult through Thecus's web site to discover where you can go to buy their
products.I found 'networkstorageworks.com' to be one that is reasonable in price.
I'm not affiliated with Thecus nor networkstorageworks, simply a long-time happy
Thecus customer.-Joe
On Thursday, December 2, 2021, 04:46:59 AM EST, Walter Cazzola
<cazzola(a)di.unimi.it> wrote:
Dear Fedoers,
I'm planning to buy a NAS to backup my Linux boxes. I've spent few days at
looking for it on the Internet but I've some hard time to find a NAS that fits
my needs.
I intend to use it both the backup my data but also to keep consistent the
data on several linux-boxes. That is, the data are changed on one machine
(incrementally) back-upped and then restored from another one and vice versa.
As an inexperienced user, the characteristics I've pointed out are:
1 - ethernet based NAS optionally with wake-on lan (ie., the capability of
being turned on by a signal over the internet)
2- Linux compliant ie.,
- it should be formatted in ext3/4 or other *nix file system to maintain all
the linux file details such as access rights, attributes, links, name
lengths/characters, ...
- rsync should be a viable solution to update/restore the backup
3- files should be accessible over the internet possibly via ssh, https, or
mount over the internet
4- possibility to create multiple partitions, possibly also with multiple
file systems.
5- RAID 5 or better the supported replicated storage should be at least 5TB
6- optionally I would also like to have some way to limit/control/monitor
the accesses from the external, eg., via firewall (it will be on a
intranet and I can put a firewall on the modem but it would be nice to
have some extra control over security and privacy)
I do not have a net preference between mechanical and optical storage even
if I suppose that given the same storage size mechanical solutions are cheaper
and optical ones are faster. Probably cheaper (especially when associated with
more reliable) is better than faster.
From your experience do you have some brand/model to suggest? Or something
that I should consider that I didn't list?
Thank you in advance for your help.
Walter
--
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
5:47 a.m.
Am 02.12.2021 um 10:46 schrieb Walter Cazzola
<cazzola(a)di.unimi.it>:
From your experience do you have some brand/model to suggest? Or something
that I should consider that I didn't list?
According to your list you may need rather a „full blown“ NAS like QNap or Synology. Both
have a lot of additional server applications for various purposes and desktop applications
specially designed to support those NAS services not only for Windows, but almost entirely
for MacOS and Linux as well. They are flexible and can presumably be adapted to changing
needs. Personally, I've been using various Synology models for longer as a decade now
at about the same purposes as you are planning (and some more, e.g. a mail hub, ebook
library, etc), currently a DS 918+ with SSD cache. But keep in mind, it's based on
Linux, but in the end it's a closed, proprietary system.
This works well, but really only as far and as long as you want to do exactly what
Synology applications are for and what the web interface architects envisioned - and
that's pretty basic. As soon as this is no longer enough (and the chance is quite high
after some time of use), it becomes very difficult and cumbersome. And too often is is
impossible because Synology overwrites custom configurations with the defaults at every
boot. I startet to migrate a lot of services to a Fedora Server (rsp. several servers
using beside a traditional small server also affordable but powerful Single Board
Computers). My Synology is increasingly becoming a plain backup storage (and an expensive
"overkill" for that).
You should consider joining the Fedora Server mailing list. There you will find advice on
how to set up and run a Fedora Home Server.
Best
Peter
10:30 a.m.
On Fri, 3 Dec 2021, at 11:47, Peter Boy wrote:
Personally, I've been using various Synology models for
longer as a decade now at about the same purposes as you are planning
(and some more, e.g. a mail hub, ebook library, etc), currently a DS
918+ with SSD cache. But keep in mind, it's based on Linux, but in the
end it's a closed, proprietary system.
This works well, but really only as far and as long as you want to do
exactly what Synology applications are for and what the web interface
architects envisioned - and that's pretty basic. As soon as this is no
longer enough (and the chance is quite high after some time of use), it
becomes very difficult and cumbersome.
That's why out-of-the-box support for Docker is a life saver on my Synology. I'm
running plenty of unsupported software that are portable to any other linux system of the
same architecture.
I don't even use any official Synology package when I've got the whole of
Dockerhub at my disposal. I'm running Plex, Sonarr, Radarr, qBittorrent, Jackett all
containerised, going through a VPN container.
So a major selling point for any NAS-buying decision is: does it run Docker?
Stephane.
10:36 p.m.
On 12/3/21 23:30, Stephane Travostino wrote:
That's why out-of-the-box support for Docker is a life saver on
my Synolog
Hi!
I've had a Synology with 4 x 4TB drive for about 4 years and am very
happy with it. Please note however that not all Synology NASes support
Docker. Mine doesn't.
So this is something you need to verify before purchase if you want
Docker and pick a Synology.
I use Pfsense for firewalling (on a Protectli), Synology for exclusively
my backups and Truenas with a more powerful machine for all my other NAS
needs.
I guess the Synology was a good and easy start into the NAS world for me.
Hope that helps.
Fred
8:48 a.m.
On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 11:37 PM Frederic Muller <fred(a)cm17.com> wrote:
On 12/3/21 23:30, Stephane Travostino wrote:
> That's why out-of-the-box support for Docker is a life saver on my Synolog
Hi!
I've had a Synology with 4 x 4TB drive for about 4 years and am very
happy with it. Please note however that not all Synology NASes support
Docker. Mine doesn't.
So this is something you need to verify before purchase if you want
Docker and pick a Synology.
I use Pfsense for firewalling (on a Protectli), Synology for exclusively
my backups and Truenas with a more powerful machine for all my other NAS
needs.
I guess the Synology was a good and easy start into the NAS world for me.
Hope that helps.
Fred
Like others here, I have a Synology box. Little guy -- 2 drives
-- bought probably in 2012. Its power brick died and I slapped another
one with more amps. I have upgraded its drives at least 2x. It allows
me to run NFS, SMB (theoretically; never did), iSCSI, and even act as
Time Machine server for my Macs. I can also create and resize logical
volumes just fine. And most of this is done from command line.
Different from others, I use it only for export fileshares and LUNs.
IMHO, a fileserver/NAS/SAN should just do that. I have another box
which has no issues mounting shares from it to run docker containers
on. Or mounting LUNs to run VMs.
If I were to replace it with something more powerful, I would start
with FreeNAS and add the drives and network cards.
12:49 p.m.
Am 03.12.2021 um 17:30 schrieb Stephane Travostino
<steph(a)combo.cc>:
That's why out-of-the-box support for Docker is a life saver on my Synology. I'm
running plenty of unsupported software that are portable to any other linux system of the
same architecture.
Yes, indeed. My Synology supports Docker as well. Nevertheless, the way it supports Docker
is quite Synology specific (e.g. how and where to persist data) and quite limited (e.g.
Synology reverse proxy support). You can configure an advanced proxy on the command line -
as long as you do not reboot).
So it is just another example: If you are perfectly content with Synology’s options as
envisaged by the web architects, it’s very fine. Otherwise it is more or less an
overpriced obstacle. And if you are used to the freedom and flexibility of a Fedora Linux
device (which could be true for the OP), you must be careful not to implicitly transfer
this feeling and optionality to Synology / QNap. Just a reminder here, nothing bad about
Synology / QNap.
Finally, if your main purpose is to host Docker containers, Fedora CoreOS is a more
powerful, more flexible, better adjustable and much more affordable way. The more powerful
Synology models that support Docker, they are truly no bargain (and grosso modo the same
is valid for QNap).
5:01 p.m.
On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 at 05:47, Walter Cazzola <cazzola(a)di.unimi.it> wrote:
Dear Fedoers,
I'm planning to buy a NAS to backup my Linux boxes. I've spent few days at
looking for it on the Internet but I've some hard time to find a NAS that
fits
my needs.
I intend to use it both the backup my data but also to keep consistent the
data on several linux-boxes. That is, the data are changed on one machine
(incrementally) back-upped and then restored from another one and vice
versa.
As an inexperienced user, the characteristics I've pointed out are:
- ethernet based NAS optionally with wake-on lan (ie., the capability of
being turned on by a signal over the internet)
- Linux compliant ie.,
- it should be formatted in ext3/4 or other *nix file system to
maintain all
the linux file details such as access rights, attributes, links,
name
lengths/characters, ...
- rsync should be a viable solution to update/restore the backup
- files should be accessible over the internet possibly via ssh, https,
or
mount over the internet - possibility to create multiple
partitions, possibly also with multiple
file systems.
- RAID 5 or better the supported replicated storage should be at least
5TB
- optionally I would also like to have some way to limit/control/monitor
the accesses from the external, eg., via firewall (it will be on a
intranet and I can put a firewall on the modem but it would be nice to
have some extra control over security and privacy)
I do not have a net preference between mechanical and optical storage even
if I suppose that given the same storage size mechanical solutions are
cheaper
and optical ones are faster. Probably cheaper (especially when associated
with
more reliable) is better than faster.
From your experience do you have some brand/model to suggest? Or something
that I should consider that I didn't list?
For years, Mac and Windows users have been able to use high-end exterrnal
RAID
arrays. e.g. for professional video. There are external USB-3 cases that
claim to
support RAID on linux. Linux supports Thunderbolt 3, but I hadn't
encountered
external TB RAID arrays with Linux support before retiring in 2018.
A search today found:
T4-S12L.TB3 Thunderbolt 3 Four Tray-Less SAS (12Gb) /SATA III Support RAID
with LCD Control For Mac, Windows And Linux
https://www.datoptic.com/ec/portable-thunderbolt-3-four-sata-sas-ssd-raid...
P16-R64L.TB3 - 64TB Thunderbolt 3 RAID:
https://www.datoptic.com/ec/60tb-thunderbolt-3.html
The specs say: "Must use Linux Kernel 4.13 with Ubuntu 18.04 & 17.10
<http://www.areca.us/support/s_linux/driver/ubuntu/18_04.zip>";.
I assume there are other vendors selling external TB3 or USB3 RAID boxes.
I like external RAID arrays because you can plug them into a host
configured for
your needs and running the same OS as your other boxes. If you could
afford it,
you could get external RAID arrays with vendor supplied drives. The
vendor
gets statistics on drive performance for all their drives and I've heard of
replacement
drives arriving with a note telling you which drive it was meant to
replace..
--
George N. White III
863
days inactive
883
days old
20 comments
13 participants
participants (13)
-
Frederic Muller -
George N. White III -
Germano Massullo -
Joe Wulf -
Jonathan Billings -
Mauricio Tavares -
Peter Boy -
Roger Heflin -
Stephane Travostino -
Tim -
Tom Horsley -
Walter Cazzola -
wwp