Build your own. I'm doing that myself. But if you really want an ultimately cheaper all-in-one package, you can go with that. It's cheapest if you already have a computer laying around that you don't use and can install/configure FreeNAS with.
Honestly NASes are shit for storage speeds because they'll get bottlenecked by the network. Until they have 10GbE (or someone comes up with ethernet bonding that doesn't suck) they'll be slow as shit (especially a RAID NAS).
>>46842073 It's a little lower when you consider the overhead from layers 1 to 7. You'll probably max out at about 115MB/s. But if the NAS/SAN is doing RAID, then the theoretical max is 150MB/s per drive. The real-world throughput is a lot lower, but still going to get significantly bottlenecked by the network.
>>46842134 The problem with link aggregation is that the only implementation of it that can actually use multiple physical links to improve the bandwidth of a single TCP/IP (or UDP for that matter) connection is Linux's balance-rr style (I'd guess BSD has an equivalent). Most forms of link aggregation refuse to split up packets that appear to be from the same connection (sometimes even from or to the same host) because they don't want to fuck up the order of the packets. As a result it's pretty much useless except when you're going to have many concurrent connections.
>>46842158 ah, I was unaware of that. even without it though the network should be able to push 100mb/s though
>>46842012 freenas requires ECC memory, which means that you have to go with a server or workstation grade motherboard which increase the cost significantly, hence the reason I'm considering the nas unit.
>>46842208 most, if not all use memory as a disk buffer, so couldn't ram errors still affect data integrity? wouldn't you still want ECC ram regardless if you were using ZFS with freenas or samba/afp with an ext4 file system on another linux distro?
>>46842249 >RAM errors Those basically never happen to the point where you don't need to worry at all If it did happen, then it would be no worse than it happening on your desktop. Does your desktop have ECC ram?
>>46842249 ZFS is a special case where 1 error can corrupt everything on your disk and still keep going. And because it keeps going your backups are going to the shitter as well. The process can take months.
>>46842310 It would be just that 1 error that went bad. if it happens to be your filesystem you'll lose it, but you can still recover all data from it. Other then that I don't you'd mind a different pixel somewhere. data on conventional filesystems don't make hashes and don't depend on each other. ZFS is more of a expensive work solution. And it's good at that. Just don't use it if you have no idea what you're doing. People would like you to believe it's fine to run without ECC and without physical access to drives(Virtual machine etc)
>>46842343 I don't think so. Also RAM errors could happen everywhere, not just in your FS cache. It could happen in your image editors cache where you save an image, there is no way that you could detect that. It could happen in the running code of the FS, it could go berserk and destroy your FS (most likely it would cause a kernel panic tho).
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.