Low power file server for home network

Hi All,

Forgive me if I'm in the wrong place, but I'd like some advice on
putting together a file server for a home network.The intention is
that this will be an always-on, lightweight (in terms of
functionality), robust repository for all types of media: music and
photos primarily, but I'm thinking about something reasonably future-
proof so I guess it should be capable of video streaming.

Due to the always-on requirement, I'm looking for an extremely low-
power machine to host this. I'm assuming that I'll use a RAID for
storage - resiliency is more important than performance, but the disk
controller must be capable of serving data at a rate suitable to
stream music/video (although I guess that the wireless network will be
the limiting factor). This machine will obviously be headless and I'm
planning on using a Linux distro (probably Ubuntu). I may end up using
it as a gateway/webserver, although my ISPs upload rate is pretty
poor, so that is very much a secondary requirement right now.

At the moment, budget is not a requirement - I want to understand what
my options are first.

My current network is pretty simple: routing and NAT is provided by a
Linksys WRT54G, my internet connection is via a cable modem. My
desktop is hard wired, laptop connects via the wireless. The intention
is to setup something like a home theatre PC connecting via the
wireless and to use the wireless connection to play mp3-encoded music
(ripped from CDs) and possibly internet radio.

What are people's opinions?

Cheers - Adam...

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> Forgive me if I'm in the wrong place, but I'd like some advice on
> putting together a file server for a home network.The intention is
> that this will be an always-on, lightweight (in terms of
> functionality), robust repository for all types of media: music and
> photos primarily, but I'm thinking about something reasonably future-
> proof so I guess it should be capable of video streaming.
[snip]
> What are people's opinions?

Though less flexible than using a computer, you could use a purpose-built
NAS device instead. Some of these can take up to four drives and support
RAID 5. As well as being generally lower power (more on this later), they
are also smaller and normally much easier to get up and running. However,
with regard to power consumption, I was surprised to discover that many do
not turn off the drives when they are idle.

Whether you use a NAS device or a computer (assuming it is not prehistoric),
by far the weakest link in terms of data rate for video streaming is a
wireless network. For fixed devices, my advice is to always use wired
networking unless you absolutely can't.

Never forget that RAID (ignoring RAID 0) improves data availability and is
no substitute for a backup: there are several ways an entire array can be
lost. Ever since RAID started to become available for home use, I have
become more and more convinced that it typically doesn't make sense.

Depending on the model and power supply, a 3.5" hard drive takes around
10-15W measured at the mains when operational but idle (ie, just spinning).
The lowest power modern base units I have seen take 30-35W plus drive(s),
when idle. NAS devices vary but some take less than 10W excluding drives,
again when idle.

There is a lot more I could say with regard to using a computer for what you
want to do, but on the basis that you may decide to go the NAS device route
I'll save it for now.

HTH,
Alex

On 13 May, 14:16, "Alex Fraser" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> <adamomitche...@kiwis.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
>
> > Forgive me if I'm in the wrong place, but I'd like some advice on
> > putting together a file server for a home network.The intention is
-8<- snip ->8-
> > What are people's opinions?
>
> Though less flexible than using a computer, you could use a purpose-built
> NAS device instead. Some of these can take up to four drives and support
> RAID 5. As well as being generally lower power (more on this later), they
> are also smaller and normally much easier to get up and running. However,
> with regard to power consumption, I was surprised to discover that many do
> not turn off the drives when they are idle.
>
> Whether you use a NAS device or a computer (assuming it is not prehistoric),
> by far the weakest link in terms of data rate for video streaming is a
> wireless network. For fixed devices, my advice is to always use wired
> networking unless you absolutely can't.
>
> Never forget that RAID (ignoring RAID 0) improves data availability and is
> no substitute for a backup: there are several ways an entire array can be
> lost. Ever since RAID started to become available for home use, I have
> become more and more convinced that it typically doesn't make sense.
>
> Depending on the model and power supply, a 3.5" hard drive takes around
> 10-15W measured at the mains when operational but idle (ie, just spinning).
> The lowest power modern base units I have seen take 30-35W plus drive(s),
> when idle. NAS devices vary but some take less than 10W excluding drives,
> again when idle.
>
> There is a lot more I could say with regard to using a computer for what you
> want to do, but on the basis that you may decide to go the NAS device route
> I'll save it for now.
>
> HTH,
> Alex

Hi Alex,

Excellent info, thanks.

Agreed about the need for an independant backup system, and I guess if
that's in place then using a RAID system would just be belt and
braces. Given the large size and low price of SATA drives, as well as
the low power requirement, it might make more sense to have a simple
mirrored NAS. I'll take a look...

Out of interest, if you have the time, could you give me your thoughts
on using a computer instead of a NAS?

Cheers - Adam...

On 13 May, 14:16, "Alex Fraser" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> <adamomitche...@kiwis.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
>
> > Forgive me if I'm in the wrong place, but I'd like some advice on
> > putting together a file server for a home network.The intention is
> > that this will be an always-on, lightweight (in terms of
> > functionality), robust repository for all types of media: music and
> > photos primarily, but I'm thinking about something reasonably future-
> > proof so I guess it should be capable of video streaming.
> [snip]
> > What are people's opinions?
>
> Though less flexible than using a computer, you could use a purpose-built
> NAS device instead. Some of these can take up to four drives and support
> RAID 5. As well as being generally lower power (more on this later), they
> are also smaller and normally much easier to get up and running. However,
> with regard to power consumption, I was surprised to discover that many do
> not turn off the drives when they are idle.
>
> Whether you use a NAS device or a computer (assuming it is not prehistoric),
> by far the weakest link in terms of data rate for video streaming is a
> wireless network. For fixed devices, my advice is to always use wired
> networking unless you absolutely can't.
>
> Never forget that RAID (ignoring RAID 0) improves data availability and is
> no substitute for a backup: there are several ways an entire array can be
> lost. Ever since RAID started to become available for home use, I have
> become more and more convinced that it typically doesn't make sense.
>
> Depending on the model and power supply, a 3.5" hard drive takes around
> 10-15W measured at the mains when operational but idle (ie, just spinning).
> The lowest power modern base units I have seen take 30-35W plus drive(s),
> when idle. NAS devices vary but some take less than 10W excluding drives,
> again when idle.
>
> There is a lot more I could say with regard to using a computer for what you
> want to do, but on the basis that you may decide to go the NAS device route
> I'll save it for now.
>
> HTH,
> Alex

Sorry, and one more thing: any recommendations for NAS devices that
are suitable for my type of application?

Cheers again - Adam...

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
[snip]
> Agreed about the need for an independant backup system, and I guess if
> that's in place then using a RAID system would just be belt and
> braces. Given the large size and low price of SATA drives, as well as
> the low power requirement, it might make more sense to have a simple
> mirrored NAS. I'll take a look...

There are many reviews at http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/.

One that caught my attention (and appears suitable for you) was the D-Link
DNS-323. I didn't look into it fully and don't have any experience of it so
don't take this as a recommendation .

> Out of interest, if you have the time, could you give me your thoughts
> on using a computer instead of a NAS?

It isn't clear whether you were intending to build a system for the purpose
or just set an existing machine up. If the former, there is obviously the
issue of component choice with low power consumption in mind;
news:uk.comp.homebuilt would be an appropriate place to discuss this. If you
are only considering using an existing machine, there is naturally less you
can do: basically just strip it of unnecessary hardware and
underclock/undervolt if possible and practical. Although it isn't strictly
on topic, these things are also periodically discussed in u.c.h.

Saving power tends to go hand-in-hand with reducing noise, which should
generally be considered for an always-on system. What follows is really more
significant in terms of noise than power, but every little helps...

Rather than using RAID 1, you could set up a system with a pair of drives to
run a nightly rsync job from one to the other. Except while running that
job, the destination drive could be spun down.

It can be a pain to tweak a system so that the hard drive isn't written to
when you aren't using it, which is obviously a prerequisite for idle
spin-down.

You could use a low capacity 2.5" (laptop) hard drive for the OS etc, and
then large, cheap 3.5" drives purely for storage. With a *very* carefully
configured setup you could even use a CompactFlash card in an IDE adaptor
for the OS, though capacity would be limited (aside from the capacity issue
you need to minimise writes to the card due to inherent Flash memory
limitations, eg you don't want to have a swap partition on it).

One final thing which is probably quite obvious: setting up a fileserver
with low power (and noise) in mind is a project, whereas buying a NAS device
is a solution. What you gain from using a computer is flexibility, but at
the cost - literally - of higher power consumption than a similarly set up
NAS device.

Alex

On 14 May, 22:53, "Alex Fraser" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> <adamomitche...@kiwis.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> [snip]

Alex, thanks again for lots of good info...

> > Agreed about the need for an independant backup system, and I guess if
> > that's in place then using a RAID system would just be belt and
> > braces. Given the large size and low price of SATA drives, as well as
> > the low power requirement, it might make more sense to have a simple
> > mirrored NAS. I'll take a look...
>
> There are many reviews athttp://www.smallnetbuilder.com/.

I'll take a look now...

-8< snip ->8-

> It isn't clear whether you were intending to build a system for the purpose
> or just set an existing machine up. If the former, there is obviously the
> issue of component choice with low power consumption in mind;
> news:uk.comp.homebuilt would be an appropriate place to discuss this. If you
> are only considering using an existing machine, there is naturally less you
> can do: basically just strip it of unnecessary hardware and
> underclock/undervolt if possible and practical. Although it isn't strictly
> on topic, these things are also periodically discussed in u.c.h.

No existing machine, although I had pondered setting up a gateway/
webserver/file server as a project. I generally build my own machines,
but that happens about once every 2-3 years (unless a friend needs
one) so I'm always just a bit behind the times!

-8< snip lots of good advice->8-

> One final thing which is probably quite obvious: setting up a fileserver
> with low power (and noise) in mind is a project, whereas buying a NAS device
> is a solution. What you gain from using a computer is flexibility, but at
> the cost - literally - of higher power consumption than a similarly set up
> NAS device.

That's all excellent advice - thanks. I think I'll go for a NAS for
the moment, but I might still resurrect the idea of building a project
machine in the future.

Thanks for all the help! (What is usenet coming to? Not even one
mention of Hitler!!!)

Cheers - Adam...