Do I need a NAS ?

Submitted ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨xana@lemmy.zip⁩ to ⁨selfhosted@lemmy.world⁩

Hi selfhosters,

I would like to expand my server storage and I am confused now. For a bit of context, I have a mini pc running several Docker containers and I am pretty happy with it.

Right now I want to expand my server storage and after going though some options, this is my current understanding:

NAS: it is a real PC with its own chip/memory/OS and we can connect to the storage via network mount. Some are powerful enough to run docker containers on them and are generally not cheap.
HDD enclosure/docking station: it is just some enclosure to hold a lot of HDDs together and I could just plug it into my server like an USB.

I would like to ask:

Is my understanding above correct ?
Since I still have some resource left in the mini pc and want to save some bucks, is it safe to go with the HDD enclosure ?

Thank you very much and have a nice day :D

source

Comments

Sort:hotnew top

CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
The third alternative (and best IMO) is to buy a PC case with lots of drive slots and transfer everything into it. With a NAS you’re going to pay a ton of money for the NAS itself which is just laptop-equivalent hardware and a fixed number of drive bays meaning you can’t expand it when it fills up without buying more expensive hardware, and you’ll also be forced into buying matched drives. With an HDD enclosure, you’re spending less money but again fixed on the number of drives while also being somewhat unreliable due to the USB connection.

I use a Fractal Design Define 6 midtower case which can hold around 12 HDDs. For hardware I bought a mobo with the most SATA ports I could get and began slowly buying drives as my storage pool filled up, eventually needing an LSI HBA card to expand the number of SATA connections. This is the best value IMO as the cost is comparable to buying a NAS, you can add drives as you go with a much higher drive capacity, the connection is rock solid, and you can run real PC hardware.

source
- xana@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
  This is an interesting option but the main drawback is it is too big for my place currently. But I will absolutely consider it in the future
  
  source
  - northernscrub@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
    You don’t need something huge. Remove the DVD drive and the old mechanical drive from a USFF machine, stick a pair of 4TB drives in it, and put a basic debian image on it. Configure SMB with a shared folder or two, and voila: you now have a comfortable NAS for maybe £20 plus drives. Add in a sata pcie card if you can find a decent low-profile one, and that’s an extra four or even six drives. It won’t give you the cream of top performance, but it will be perfectly serviceable for a homelab.
    
    source
  - CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
    Its honestly pretty small for what you can pack inside but they do have smaller options like the Node series. The 304 is around 8"x10"x14" with room for 6 drives.
    
    source
CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
“Good” software based RAID (unraid, zfs, etc.) needs reliable access directly to the drives. Usually, USB attached storage doesn’t meet this criteria.

Not using RAID is risky unless you’re very confident in your extensive backups (which you should have anyways).

Personally I have been using a mini PC running TrueNAS with a JBOD over USB3.1 for years and have had some hiccups but nothing catastrophic, but I’m migrating it soon to a device I can use SATA.

Hardware raid is typically not a great idea because you’re usually tied to the chip.

source
Bwaz@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
Beware, an NAS will have its own file formats and structure. I put all my music files and backups on a NAS, which failed. Now I can’t recover them without buying another NAS of similar model. More ore less the opposite of why I got a NAS.

source
- MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
  No sane NAS should work that way.
  
  Unless you have a giant raid array, where you need all the drives running at the same time on the same system, plugging in a single raid 0 member, for example, via usb to sata adapter, should let access its contents just fine.
  
  Provided you’re on an OS that can read the file system. That can require some extra effort on windows.
  
  source
  - folekaule@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
    This is a qualified truth. In theory what you’re saying is true but for example with Synology they use their own raid format and while they ostensibly use btrfs they overlay their own metadata system on top.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - bluGill@fedia.io ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
    Many NAS work like that though. Hardware RAID always seems to work like that so if you get a fancy card that supports RAID you been make sure you have a good long term support contract that will be there for you when there are problems (if you are not paying hundreds of thousands per year you don't have a good support contract)
    
    Not all are that way. Many run ZFS which is great for this and you can replace broken hardware and recover. BTFS is commonly used as well, probably not as good as zfs but likely good enough.
    
    source
- xana@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
  This is also one reason why I am hesitant for a NAS. They might run on their own OS and have their own private format while I dont want to be vendor locked in in any ecosystem
  
  source
  - folekaule@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
    True open source products are your best bet. TruNAS and Proxmox are popular options, but you can absolutely set up a vanilla Debian server with Samba and call it a NAS. Back in the old days we just called those “file servers”.
    
    Most importantly, just keep good backups. If you have to choose between investing in a raid or a primary + backup drive, choose the latter every time. Raid will save you time to recover, but it’s not a backup.
    
    source
- folekaule@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
  Was this Synology by chance?
  
  source
  - Bwaz@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
    Terramaster.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
Yep, you’ve got it right.

As for me, I have a pretty beefy main server so I went with a multi-drive enclosure and set up a ZFS pool with the enclosure in JBOD mode.

I had been using the built-in RAID feature but it broke and even with formatted drives and a new enclosure it wouldn’t work, so I offloaded the RAID stuff to the server with ZFS.

source
scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
HDD enclosure is a fine way to start, as long as you know it has limitations. Eventually you’ll probably need more storage, and it won’t scale. That being said, you can get 26TB hard drives now, it’ll be a while. Just make sure you plan out how to back it up. Remember the rule - if you can’t afford to buy a backup then you can’t afford to do the project. Make sure you have backups in mind.

If you decide to upgrade to a full NAS solution later also remember that during that migration you probably will need to use new hard drives while migrating as your current ones will need to be copied from to the new NAS, meaning you will probably end up with a few redundant drives. Not a huge thing, but there will be no “in-place” upgrade. It all depends on where you want your homelab to go in the future.

source
LazerDickMcCheese@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
Just to repeat what you’re already hearing: if I started over from the beginning, I’d skip a NAS entirely and just build a server with a ton of bays (which I just bought). Funny enough, I came here to recommend Fractal Design cases too

source
MoonlitSanguine@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
I used to use an old Intel NUC with a HDD enclosure plugged into the USB 3 port as a NAS. Ran the *arr suite + Jellyfin on the internal SSD and stored all the media on the HDD and it worked fine. You should be good

source
Brkdncr@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
I went with a nas since I needed storage and barely any compute, and I wanted it on all of the time. I also wanted a cloud sync service.

Keep in mind that SMB and NFS work fine across any network but iSCSI needs a reliable hardwire network with decent buffers on the switch.

Attaches storage uses USB which isn’t that great. eSATA is better. External drives start to add up too.

source
bluGill@fedia.io ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
NAS can be two different things.

NAS is just "network attached storage": a computer that has a bunch of disks attached to your network. IF you put a single disk on your network and nfs/samba to share it you have created a simple NAS - I strongly recommend you put in more drives for redundancy, but that is all NAS is.

Often NAS is taken to mean not just the above, but a custom machine that does the above. The downside is these custom machines are often slow, and put weird hardware/software on them such that if the whole box breaks (as opposed to just a single disk failing which they are good at handling) you may not be able to recover anything. One variation of this you want more space and discover you can't upgrade it at all. They are an easy way into NAS, but the downsides are such that I can't recommend them anyway.

source