Hey again! I’ve progressed in my NAS project and I’ve chosen to go for a DIY NAS. I can’t wait for the parts to arrive!

Now I’m a bit struggling to choose an OS. I am starting with 2x10To HDD + 1To NVMe SSD. I plan to use 1 HDD for parity and to add more disks later.

I plan to use this server purely as a NAS because I will be getting a second more powerful server some time next year. But in the meantime, this NAS is a big upgrade over my rpi 4, so I will run some containers or VMs.

I don’t want to go with TrueNAS as I don’t want to use ZFS (my RAM is limited and I’m not sure I can add drives with different sizes). I’ve read btrfs is the second best for NAS, so I may use this.

Unraid seemed like the perfect fit. But the more I read about it, the more I wonder if I shouldn’t switch to Proxmox.

What I like about Unraid is the ability to add a disk without worrying about the size. I don’t care much about the applications Unraid provides and since docker-compose is not fully supported, I’m afraid I won’t be able to do things I could have done easily with a docker-compose.yml I also like that’s it’s easy to share a folder. What I don’t like about Unraid is the cache system and the mover. I understand why the system works this way but I’m not a fan.

I’ve asked myself if I needed instant parity for all my data and if I should put everything in the array.

The thing is that for some of my data I don’t care about parity. For instance, I’m good with only backing up my application data and to have parity for the backup. For my tv shows I don’t care about parity nor backup while I want both for my photos.

After some more research, I found mergerfs and snapraid. I feel that they are more flexible and fix the cache/mover issue from Unraid. Although I’m not sure if snapraid can run with only 2 disks.

If I go with Proxmox I think I would use OpenMediaVault to setup shares.

Is anyone using something like this? What are your recommendations?

Thanks!

  • atzanteolEnglish
    3·
    10 months ago

    “Need” is a strong word. But yes BRTFS RAID 5/6 is unstable but unless you’re only after space efficiency RAID 5/6 shouldn’t be used at all, those shames will put you on the worst position possible if something fails (and also low throughput). When you try to rebuild a RAID 5 with large drives it will probably go into days and you’ll be risking the failure of a second drive and lose everything right there.

    I’ve had a RAID5 for 10+ years, had drives fail and I’ve replaced them. Rebuilds are fine and rare. It’s very unlikely to have two drives fail within a week of each other and I don’t want to only get 1/2 my disk space. RAID6 makes that small chance even smaller. If you’re worried about loss you have backups - RAID is for uptime not recovery.

    You seem to think the way you’ve done things is the one and true right way to do it and that’s not the case.

    • TCB13@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11·
      10 months ago

      You seem to think the way you’ve done things is the one and true right way to do it and that’s not the case.

      Not at all and I totally agree with what you’ve said. To clarify things, I’m not the only one saying people should stay away from RAID 5/6, even large vendors say that nowadays, and the issue is when a drive fails, if you’ve to run for hours to get a new one rebuild a second hard drive is highly likely to fail on that time - specially if they’ve the same runtime, model etc.

      Obviously that having a real backup will solve the issue, as long as you can retrieve the data from the backup quickly and cheaply enough and that’s not always the case.

      • atzanteolEnglish
        1·
        10 months ago

        if you’ve to run for hours to get a new one rebuild a second hard drive is highly likely to fail on that time - specially if they’ve the same runtime, model etc.

        If you’re running a 2-disk RAID-1 you have the same problem.

        And I restate - that risk is small. You’re not running a data center where you have thousands of disks to see the effect.

        • TCB13@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          10 months ago

          And I restate - that risk is small. You’re not running a data center where you have thousands of disks to see the effect.

          Fair enough, even though I’ve seen that effect in smaller setups than that.