File Storage - How do you do it - suggestions for my next solution?

General Discussions
1

Hi, I am running out of storage space in the foreseeable future and would be glad, if you guys could give me some tips.

Right now, I basically have a dedicated plex media server box, which I intend to keep (Skull Canyon Nuc), and three different NAS-Boxes.
1x Zyxel Nas 540 - 4 Bay Nas with 4x3TB WD Red (Raid 5 → 8.11 TB usable)
1x Zyxel Nas 542 - 4 Bay Nas with 4x3TB WD Red (Raid 5 → 8.11 TB usable)
1x Buffalo LinkStation something - 2 Bay Nas with 2x2TB WD Red (Raid 1 → 1.8 TB usable)

I ended up with this configuration after starting out many years back with the 2-bay NAS and adding storage as needed by purchasing another NAS.

However, I am highly reluctant to just go out there, buy another NAS-Box and add storage as it seems highly inefficient to have all those different boxes running, consuming electricity, and even more, waisting all that space on redundancy. Right now I have theoretically 28 TB of raw HDD-space but due to redundancy only 20 TB is usable.

I did a quick search on 12-bay NAS-boxes and there is a Synology DS2415+ which would set me back around 1’500 CHF just for the box. There is also an extension box for another 12-Bays for roughly 1’000 CHF so I would be future proof. But that is the end of the line in the consumer market (not counting rack solutions). However, I guess migrating all that data becomes another problem since I can’t just pull the drives from my existing NAS and put them into the Synology (I assume?). So I would need to buy some HDDs (6 TB WD Reds?)and expand the array after some “old” drives can be cleared and put into the new box?

Alternatively, I thought about building a storage box computer? But where to start? I feel comfortable to build a rig but have absolutely no clue when it comes to handling this amount of hard drives. Most cases don’t support that many drive bays and only the most expensive motherboards have 8 SATA ports? Since I only use the NASes for storage I probably wouldn’t even need a very good CPU?

Have I missed a possible third solution?

So how would you guys tackle this problem? And please don’t tell me I am a hoarder and should get rid of parts of my collection…:wink:

Any help is highly appreciated.

2

I think you’re on the right track looking at larger NAS solutions. Bear in mind you don’t have to transfer your libraries all at once. You can copy them in small chunks. As long as Plex points to both directories, you’ll maintain your watch histories, metadata, and such as you go.

3

Thanks for your fast reply. I guessed so, but I am a bit hesitant to spend 2k at once for a neater and more efficient setup and was wondering if someone could give me insight to maybe save a bit?

4

I guess that’s the downside of large libraries… Once you go beyond a certain point, the cheap solutions don’t work anymore.
When I upgraded last time, the more modern box could take larger drives by default. Although it was a big investment up front, it will get cheaper to add to over time.

5

I have a large library, over 3000 movies and over 600 TV shows, I use a quite simple storage solution.

I have a computer that acts as a file server with 11 or so external USB drives attached. The drives are all pooled using StableBit’s DrivePool. I have had that setup for years and have lost two drives, one to clumsiness when I dropped it redoing my rack that holds my server, and in those failures I have never lost any data. (I use 2x duplication for my library) Also when I need to expand my storage it is a simple matter of ordering a new drive, anything from 3-10 TB depending on price and reliability reputation, then plug it in and add it to the pool. It is really that easy.

The only disadvantage I have found with my setup is that there is quite a bit of “clutter.” I solved that issue quite simply with a rolling rack I found behind a convenience store. On that rack I have my file server, my Emby server, all my drives and a UPS for everything. I calculate I have room on the rack to double my storage from 50tb to 100tb if it is ever necessary but I REALLY doubt my library will ever need even 60tb. Oh I also have my Shield Pro with the Plex server I keep active on that rack but it takes up very little space and I almost never use Plex anymore.

While I cannot and would not say pricey NASs are in any way “bad” I do believe they are too expensive, by far, for any advantage they offer.

My general recommendation is just a computer server with external drives using a good pooling solution.

Remember: Duplication in any form is redundancy not backup. If you want real safety you must have an external backup solution to a separate device that cannot (as much as possible) ever fail at the same time as your primary system.

6

I have a similar situation to you, started off with a tiny syncology ds214, kept adding smaller ones of different makes, QNAS, Western Digital etc… until I had 6 or 7 small NAS servers running and I was only getting 50% of the overall disk capacity.

NAS is still not cheap so whatever you do is likely to be expensive.

I pulled my pants down, bent over and bought a Synology DS515+ and expansion frame and filled them with 8TB disks. I have about 50TB of usable storage now and have not had to worry about storage for a long time. In fact with all the content management stuff i´m running now I don´t think about it at all as it is all auto managed.

Anyway, best advice I can give from my experience is to invest in something that can be expanded when full. You want to be buying more hard disks when you need more storage, not more chassis, CPU and memory. Make sure that whatever you get has adequate network connectivity, It is likely that 1Gbps will not be enough as a larger system may have more connections, more users and with video bit rates getting higher and higher, we are already at the point where a single 1gbps nic is not enough for some of the uncompressed 4K stuff out there now.

For the money vs features vs reliability, synology still comes out on top, everything else seems only marginally cheaper but with a lot of extra work and uncertainty. I have confidence in Synology not to corrupt all of my data, they seem to actually smoke test their software before release which is a bit of a novelty these days.

7

@MattTwinkleToes said:
You want to be buying more hard disks when you need more storage, not more chassis, CPU and memory.

This is a valid point for keeping your storage separated from your server. If you buy a new full on server, you’ll eventually reach a point of wanting to replace it someday. Keeping your parts separated affords you some flexibility in the future for upgrades, and possible crashes.

8

I’d go with the biggest drives you can afford now. Maybe an 8 bay with 10TB drives or 8TB drives?

9

Not the most electrically efficient, but I am using decommissioned server gear in my basement. You can find all means of storage enclosures on your local classifieds and on flea-bay.

I was in a similar boat a few years ago where I was getting cheap used NAS boxes off of Craigslist every couple years, but in the end I sold them all and got a cheap 12-bay DAC enclosure.

If I were to start over today I would build a freenas or unraid box with internal storage and the biggest drives I could afford. If you wanted more disks could always get an external enclosure down the road.

10

It appears you have raid for drive redundancy but no data backup.
8x3TB and 2x2TB = 28TB but u only have 18TB usuable

How big is your library?
What about skipping raid and duplicate your library?

or just buy bigger drives!

11

First of all, many thanks for your various answers and inspirations.

I did some research myself in the meantime and came up with a possible alternative solution to build a diy NAS and just use Windows Storage Spaces in parity mode.

PCPartPicker part list: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/8NfJjc
Price breakdown by merchant: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/8NfJjc/by_merchant/

CPU: Integrated with Motherboard
Motherboard: ASRock - C2550D4I Mini ITX Atom C2550 Motherboard ($319.99 @ Newegg Marketplace)
Memory: Crucial - 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($109.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: ADATA - Ultimate SU800 128GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($49.99 @ Newegg Marketplace)
Storage: Seagate - BarraCuda 5TB 2.5" 5400RPM Internal Hard Drive ($189.00 @ Amazon)
Storage: Seagate - BarraCuda 5TB 2.5" 5400RPM Internal Hard Drive ($189.00 @ Amazon)
Storage: Seagate - BarraCuda 5TB 2.5" 5400RPM Internal Hard Drive ($189.00 @ Amazon)
Case: Silverstone - DS380B Mini ITX Tower Case ($155.37 @ Amazon)
Power Supply: Silverstone - Strider Gold 450W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular SFX Power Supply ($93.99 @ Amazon)
Other: LINESO 6 Pack Straight SATA III Cable 6.0 Gbps 18 Inches (red) ($15.00 @ Amazon)
Other: LINESO 6 Pack Straight SATA III Cable 6.0 Gbps 18 Inches (red) ($15.00 @ Amazon)
Total: $1326.33
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-11-29 12:31 EST-0500

This solution would allow me to set up an inital 3-Drive Pool with parity, copy over the contents of NAS 540, insert the NAS 540 drives into the built storage computer, create another drive pool with 4x3TB drives, copy over the contents of NAS 542, expand that drivepool with the remaining 4x3TB drives in parity.

Option A: In the end I would have usable space of: 10 TB from the 3x2.5 inch drive pool, 21 TB from the 8x3TB drive pool.
I would end up in total with 31 TB of usable space.
The documentation on Storage Spaces is pretty poor imho, the write speeds are terrible in parity and the savings compared to the 12 bay synology nas with easy handling are pretty neglectable.
Cost: 1326.33 USD, a lot of work, reading etc.

Option B: I am going to pull down my pants, bend over and sh… out that money for the initially considered Synology DS 2415+. I buy four more 3 TB drives(Because you apparently have to start the array with your smallest drives), copy over the content of NAS 540 and start adding drives with Synology Hybrid Raid (SHR). In the end I have 12x3TB drives in SHR with a total usable storage capacity of 33 TB, i then switch from SHR to SHR-2 which gives a 2 failure redundancy, leaving me with 30 TB of usual space. I can always expand the storage by replacing hard drives and even have the possibility to buy another 12Bay addition for around 1000 CHF.
Cost: 1500 for the Synolog, 460 for the 4 additional 3TB WD Reds, 1960 CHF = 1996 USD,

Option C: buy 4x WD Red 8TB (8TB is the biggest drive compatible) and replace the drives in the NAS 540 one by one. I end up with 24 TB of usable space in NAS 540, 9 TB in NAS 542, and 2 TB in the Buffalo link station, totaling 37 TB.
cost: 1076 CHF.
I have the possibility to expand NAS 542 in the same manner at a later point, allowing me to grow to 48 TB of usable space.
So I guess the most cost effective and easiest way is to buy the biggest disks my current setup takes and leave it be. If I should ever need more than 48 TB of space I definitely need a bigger box, but until then I think I keep it the way it is.

My library is quite “small” for the space it needs. I have around 1000 Movies, some Music and around 7500 TV Show Episodes. As a backup solution I have an unlimited GoogleDrive Account where NAS 540 and the Buffalo Linkstation are stored, NAS 542 is still in the uploading process. This is the reason I use Raid 5 so liberally. I don’t want to download everything again from GDrive if a drive fails. I also never trust online storage solutions completely.

Again thank you for your much appreciated inputs.

12

A thought about drives used in most mutli-bay options. Go as big as you can afford to for each drive. If you use a drive calculator and start looking at swapping in and out scenarios, you’ll notice that starting small and going bigger later doesn’t net you as much return on space. For example, starting with 4s and progressively updating to 8s one by one doesn’t net you a lot per increment, and then you’re left with a stack of 4s you may not use. Adding on an 8 to a bunch of 4s also hurts you, as you’ll tie up 8tb somewhere else in your array attempting to compensate for the single biggo drive.

I opted for 8s over 6s to start because I wanted to add the same model and size going forward, and 8s seemed to be the most cost efficient, while maximizing the end result.

I use this tool a lot when trying to figure out angles for space. It may not be the best, but it’s quick and it works well enough:
http://www.drobo.com/storage-products/capacity-calculator/

13

I would seriously consider a NSA (non-striped array) solution such as unRAID, SnapRAID, etc. They are extremely easy to expand, you can use disks of all sizes/speeds, can save you power as only active drives are spun up, and can seriously reduce the risk of total data loss as the most data you can lose is that which is on the disks you lose beyond parity.

I have two unRAID servers (80TB and 56TB) are they are the perfect solution for a home media server. I often have 6-10 active streams/transcodes every night with no performance issues what-so-ever.

In fact I’m selling my backup unRAID server right now as I’m moving my backup storage solution offsite and going non-rackmount (shameless plug).

14

This is definitely an attractive offer but I don’t intend to buy used hardware as a principle. I will give it some time and look into Unraid. I actually considered other"freeware" NAS OSes but wasn’t really impressed. There is a Synology hack but it is a hack and who knows what’s going to happen and I don’t intend to save a few bucks upfront and possibly run into a huge disaster 3 years down the road… And then there is FreeNAS which is ridiculous imho because you need a lot of ECC-RAM which offsets the intial price advantage of going DIY, having to build everything yourself etc.

15

I wasn’t so much selling you on purchasing my server as as I was unRAID or other NSA’s. unRAID is not freeware and you get a lot for it IMO.

16

Here’s a few SS’s for those unfamiliar. Dual parity, full disk encryption. Tons of docker support (though I run my dockers on other systems).

17

Oh wow im so glad i stumbled across this thread.
Im kind of in the same situation as @mcboss86.
My windows server housed in a Fractal Design R5 case is getting to capacity with hard drives. That said Stablebit Drivepool has served me well over the years so i dont plan to change my existing set up. But i now have about 6 or 7 4TB drives and there will be more available in the future as they get replaced by 8TB drives in the main server.So what to do with those drives?

I pondered nas enclosures etc, but i recently upgraded my main server and so as well as all the hard drives I also have my previous system (apart from the case) sat idle. So today i ordered another Fractal Design 10 bay case. I had thought of just creating a Windows NAS, however i have been reading up or Freenas, UnRaid and a few other alternatives over the last week or two. I even tested them out on a “cobbled together for the purpose” system.
FreeNas i found totally daunting and definitely not for me.
Unraid however was a different matter. Wow i just cant believe how easy it is to set up even for a Windows only guy like me. When the new case turns up on Friday im gonna set a couple of drives for parity and a spare SSD for cache.
Dont get me wrong i would have no idea where to even start with docker and some of the other features available, however most of that stuff in catered for on the main Windows server.
Worst case scenario i fall back to the windows NAS plan, but somehow I don’t think that will be necessary.

Thanks @IamSpartacus for the positive feedback. It’s given me more encouragement to test Unraid fully.

18

@HitsVille Docker is stupid easy to setup and use in unRAID. Futhermore, the unRAID forums are heavily supported especially by the LinuxServer.io team who maintains some of the best docker containers out there.

https://tools.linuxserver.io/dockers

19

@mcboss86 said:
And then there is FreeNAS which is ridiculous imho because you need a lot of ECC-RAM which offsets the intial price advantage of going DIY, having to build everything yourself etc.

It’s a common misconception that you need ECC RAM to run ZFS (the underlying filesystem that FreeNAS uses). You only need ECC if you want the integrity guarantees that ZFS gives which other systems cannot promise. If you are OK with the lesser integrity guarantees that non-ZFS systems provide, then ZFS running on non-ECC memory will yield the same.

As per “a lot,” I guess that’s a matter of perspective. ZFS really requires a minimum of 8G of RAM to run well but I wouldn’t qualify that as a lot these days. The last computer I had with only 8G of RAM was made in 2010.

Personally, my data is valuable enough that I went with a ZFS system using ECC RAM. In the end, the price of the computer hardware is still outweighed by the price of the hard drives It was worth it to me to ensure that I can survive failure cases that other system cannot. I’ve also found that the expansion limitations in ZFS which other complain about are all due to these guarantees and the other systems don’t have these limitations because they don’t have the associated guarantees. So it boils down to the question: How valuable is your data to you and what cost/planning are you willing to spend on it vs what failures are you willing to chance?

As a side note, I currently run ZFS within FreeNAS but I’ll be switching over to Ubuntu soon. While FreeNAS is a nice NAS system for many tasks, it is missing a few pieces that have grated on me recently (such as a sensible filesystem change notification API). ZFS runs quite will within Ubuntu and it is part of the standard distribution these days, though I must admit I’ll miss the full NFSv4 ACLs which are present in the BSD kernel but still absent from the Linux kernel.

20

@gbooker02 I’m a little confused by your post. One on hand you’re saying you don’t need to use ECC to run FreeNAS but on the other hand you tout all the file integrity features of ZFS as your main motivation for using it. You can’t have it both ways. I can’t think of a single benefit ZFS has over NSA’s for media storage without ECC. And even with ECC I still believe NSA offer greater benefits for this use case.