# My first home server build



## gasd90 (May 28, 2014)

*HEY GUYS!*
Thanks for allowing me a chance to share my intentions with a crowd that seems to know what they are talking about. Always nice to know you are in safe hands, especially when it comes to the expensive world and ever changing landscape of computing, specifically.. building your own system.

Admittedly, I have only ever built one system. :hide:
When I worked for my dad, he needed a computer that could handle the tasks he wanted to do for business purposes. Invoices, records, sales, finances etc. and so I went along and bought the parts and it lasted a number of years until he no longer needed it.

Fast forward to today, and I've been seriously thinking about running my own file server at home. I'm not talking about a huge project, just a well built, high performance file server that can be a backup for my gaming PC, laptop and anything else like my family and friends that come round with their computers. In all essence, a file server for home use. 

I've been looking at running FreeNAS, it looks relatively simple and it's got a good reputation from what I see. You have to bare in mind, I'M NO EXPERT. I know my Start Menu from my System32 but, when it comes to this. Especially building a server, I'm a rock bottom noob so go easy? opcorn:

Okay so like I said. I want a file server that I can backup ALL my data on. I don't want to be spending more than £700/$1170. I already have a system laid out that is just over £600/$1000. I want quality. I want performance. I don't want to be looking at some ex-Win98 case with components from that era. I want new parts. Good build quality. A server I can rely on and lasts me. That being said, here is the build..

*Case*
Corsair Obsidian 250D Mini ITX PC case








_I just love the look of this. I'm digging the whole Mini-ITX case because it's small, it can fit on the corner of my desk without a sweat and it looks the part whilst being a high standard case_
- PSU: EVGA 100-W1-0430-KR 430W White Compact ATX PSU

*Motherboard*
Asus P8H61-I, H61 Chipset, Socket 1155, Motherboard mini-ITX
_It it what it is. Caters for the ability of 4 SATAII drives, onboard graphics, DDR3 RAM, everything I need.._

*CPU*
Intel Xeon E3-1220 V2, Ivy Bridge, S1155, Quad Core 3.1GHz, 8MB Smart Cache, 31x Ratio, 69W
_I've heard alot about Xeon processors especially when it comes to them being able to run practically 24/7 which I'm sure makes it a great buy for a home server that I don't intend to turn off unless the dreaded power cut and then well. The thing is though, IS TOO 'OP' FOR WHAT I WANT IT TO DO? I see guys creating home NAS servers and using old dual cores and some even sticking with P4 processors._ :nonono:
- CPU Cooler: Silverstone Argon Thin Mini-ITX Low Profile CPU Cooler

*RAM*
8GB (2x4GB) Corsair Value Select DDR3 PC3-10666 (1333), Non-ECC Unbuffered, CAS 9-9-9-24, 1.5V
_I'm right in saying, I don't need TONNES of memory if I'm only going to be running a NAS home server, won't be gaming, won't be browsing the internet on it etc. So will 8GB suffice?_

*HDD*
x2 Toshiba MK2002TSKB 2TB 3.5'' Enterprise 24x7 SATA Hard Drive
_I think 4GB will suffice for now. It doesn't sound like a lot when I think I'm building a server but I've never topped a 4GB hard drive in my life so thats saying something._

*OPTICAL DRIVE*
Samsung SH-118BB/BEBE Black 18x SATA DVD ROM
_Thinking it's advisable to have a DVD drive for obvious reasons_

Alright, so thats it. In my eyes, thats a pretty high end home server in regards to the tasks it has to face. Ofcourse it's not the best, but I'm here to try and get some criticism, after all, I'm not an expert and nor do I claim to be one so it would be great if some of you could help me out here as I'm bound to of made a mistake or two.

My questions also..
1. The case supports ATX PSU's which is great. But whats a reasonable amount of wattage to power such a system? 
2. Your opinions on the mobo?
3. Your opinions on the system as a whole?
4. And, any criticism, remarks, opinions, suggestions, info, would be very much appreciated


----------



## Masterchiefxx17 (Feb 27, 2010)

If you are only building this for file storage why not save all this money and buy a personal user NAS?

Seagate STCG4000100 Network Storage - Newegg.com

That will store all your PC files as a backup.

1. The case supports ATX PSU's which is great. But whats a reasonable amount of wattage to power such a system? 

  Since there is no GPU, you do not require all that much power. A 550W XFX or Seasonic branded PSU will do the trick.

2. Your opinions on the mobo?

It looks fine for the motherboard.

3. Your opinions on the system as a whole?

This depends if it is only for file storage.


----------



## gasd90 (May 28, 2014)

Cheers Masterchiefxx17 for your reply mate, much appreciated 
I don't use Newegg for a start, I'm in the UK, I'm pretty sure they would ship to me but it's all that hassle when I can get the same parts here. I use Scan Computers here in the UK. 

I've really thought about getting a system that's already built, but..
where's the fun in that? I mean, it's already built. It's ready to go, I want to build it from scratch and having sitting there all noble.

I presumed it's a little OP for what I want it to do. Yes, I'm only planning on keeping it for file storage so I'm guessing it might be a good idea to downgrade the CPU? I'm pretty sure the same CPU or very simular powers alot of web servers. Now I'd understand the need to have so much processing power but for a home server? I'm not too sure. I haven't purchased anything. I have the money. It's there waiting..

Forget the idea of buying a pre-built system. Thats a no-go. I want to build it myself, perhaps learn a few things along the way. And have a system that I tailored myself.

So, downgrade necessary?


----------



## Masterchiefxx17 (Feb 27, 2010)

If it is just a file server, I do think building a PC for that is not needed. It's way overkill.

A simple prebuilt NAS will do the job just as well.

I won't see the reason for spending so much money on a NAS type PC.


----------



## gcavan (Aug 13, 2009)

Pretty well any pc will serve as simple file storage. The only real requirement is fast ethernet; at least 10/100 wired (gigabit preferred) or wireless N. If you want a RAID set, it should support the type of RAID you intend to use (probably RAID 10). If you will be using external storage, you should have one or more USB 3.0 ports. If using SSDs, you need a SATA3 (6Gb/s) controller; otherwise SATA2 (3Gb/s) is fine.

For specific hardware, a motherboard with the features you require, a 2-3GHz dual or quad core proc, 2-4 GB of memory, on board graphics, a DVD driive and as many HDD/SSD as you require. You might add a Blu-Ray player or combo-drive. If required, add in an 802.11ac wireless card, or choose a motherboard with integrated wifi.

As far as that listed in post#1, if you are buying new, then buy current generation equipment (ie socket LGA1150 board/cpu). For a home file server, a Xeon is a bit much and definitely a waste of resources. Maybe if you had to consistently host several dozen clients. For power, a good quality 300-350 will be plenty.


----------



## gasd90 (May 28, 2014)

Thanks for all your replies guys, really appreciate it!

I agree with you all, it's far too much for what I want it to do. I'm just on the fence between quality and quantity. I mean, I could go just a few miles down the road. Buy a second-hand machine for £200/$400 and then just buy some enterprise HDDs and a HDD controller. What I'am noticing is even for a relatively simple system, it looks pretty expensive when you add up all those HDDs that are designed to run 24/7. Remember, I don't intend to turn this system off AT ALL. I want it to be the hub of my home for files, maybe all my files, I haven't decided yet.

Unfortunately, FreeNAS doesn't support wireless capabilities so that automaticly, is a no-go. But a great idea though. I feel I won't need BluRay drives? Simply because the only purpose for the system is to be a headless backup file server. I'm thinking about just getting a standard DVDROM drive if I want to later make it more available to a Windows environment. I'm looking at network cards, and there are some server-spec network cards going for as little as £10/$20! Which is great. 

I will probably incorporate RAID 10, I was thinking just RAID 1 at first because simply it's just a mirror. I know, I'm clever right. I'm still pretty new to this. But I've seen that RAID 10 is even better in that multiple drives can go down and the RAID 10 can still function which sounds more like my cup of tea (pardon the British sentiment). Though I'm right in saying using RAID 10 takes up 50% of your entire HDD space. So I'm planning on 10TB storage. I'll only have 5TB free? Due to parity? So already, financially whilst I'm using RAID 10 I've effectively lost half of the money I spent on the disks. Which doesn't sound good as WD Red disks are pretty damn expensive.


----------



## Vadigor (Apr 19, 2009)

Some notes:

You don't really need enterprise drives, unless you're referring to consumer-grade drives targeted at continuous use like the Caviar Red. I also see no need for a HDD controller.

Don't get a built-in optical drive at all, get a USB DVD reader/writer: save room, energy and cabling.

You don't need a separate network card unless you want to convert your LAN to fibre.

You don't need RAID either. For consumers there are only two real uses for RAID. You can stripe to RAID0 for high-performance reads, which only benefits a limited number of scenarios. On LAN your network speed would likely bottleneck this anyway. Or you can mirror to RAID1 which is *not* a backup solution. It's a high-availability solution. What it means is that if your first drive goes down, the other will still be there to assure continuous availability of your data. But because those drives are part of the same array, equal wear will be present on the drive that's still operational and odds of a cluster failure are higher than you might think. As such, RAID0 is an unsound backup tool. One option that you could consider is to mirror the drive on another computer like your desktop. In any case you'd still need an external backup solution. RAID is not an effective backup solution and as you say certainly not cost-effective.


----------



## gasd90 (May 28, 2014)

I presumed that with having hardware RAID, in the form of an independent controller, it would be more reliable and safer presuming that one day, say, there is corruption on my USB key I use for the OS. Then, I'm in a mess. But if I use a HDD controller, effectively I could still access my files if I was to get a new USB key. I just read somewhere that it's more effective in data storage use like NAS servers than software RAID where like I said, if the whole system goes down for whatever reason, you only have the software to fix itself for it work again whereas if I use hardware RAID. Everything is still there presuming the controller doesnt develop a fault.

I'm just looking for a professional data storage/backup solution for my own home. Like I said, I don't want to fish out an old box from my local computer shop and mess around with. Although cheaper in the long run. I want a brand new, capable and professional solution for my home. I have considered pre-built NAS systems but again, I don't like the idea of having a box built in a factory somewhere. I like the idea of having my own server purring away in the background. Reliable. Speedy. Always available.

I guess I'am abit picky but I hope you understand my needs


----------



## Vadigor (Apr 19, 2009)

I certainly understand the sentiment but you won't get a professional solution for 700 quid if by professional you mean running 4 disks with a reliable RAID controller. I suggest you drop RAID entirely since it doesn't offer you anything you need but is still capable of causing all kinds of problems.

Given your requirements a reliable system with 2 HDDs should be perfectly possible for less than 500 GBP.


----------



## Masterchiefxx17 (Feb 27, 2010)

To save on money you could build a standard 1150 socket Intel PC to use as your file server.

Just choose a motherboard with RAID 10 onboard to save you the cost of a RAID card.


----------



## gasd90 (May 28, 2014)

By Intel do you mean running Windows? Ideally I want the system to be headless. I don't really want an OS installed apart from FreeNAS. Or do you mean just get a cheap new system and just use the spec it comes with?

The current motherboard has RAID support but I guess I'm covering all eventualities here, that if the motherboard fails then I'm in a mess. Would the data then be corrupt because I'd have to get an identical motherboard that recognises the configuration of the previous motherboard?


----------



## Fjandr (Sep 26, 2012)

gasd90 said:


> Would the data then be corrupt because I'd have to get an identical motherboard that recognises the configuration of the previous motherboard?


Yes, you would need either an identical motherboard, or you would need an identical discrete controller. Unless there's an LSI controller baked onto the board, the latter won't happen as neither Nvidia nor Intel produce discrete controllers that are identical to those that come on-board. (or in the case of Nvidia, at all)


----------



## gasd90 (May 28, 2014)

So it would be best to get an HDD controller seeing as getting a new motherboard puts me back whereas getting a new HDD controller just means I could use software RAID until I get a new controller?

On the other hand, I've been looking at pre-built NAS systems and I've seen a small business NAS server that runs Windows Storage Server 2008 and 8TB WD Red HDDs with Intel Atom dual-core processor. It's small, tiny actually and seems to fit the bill. Here is the link:
http://www.scan.co.uk/products/6tb-...-storage-server-small-office-server-4-bay-nas
WD Link:
http://wd.com/en/products/products.aspx?id=610

And here is another, this is aimed more for home use. It's by WD again but it's a consumer based NAS server and has 12TB opposed to 8TB in the small business box. And it's just about £12 more expensive than the small business box and you get 4TB extra. But the only downside I see is it's based on cloud technology which I'm not a fan of to be honest, I'm not doubting that in the real-world where cyber attacks on personal data storage is well, very rare, that it will suffice to do the job properly. It's just I don't like the idea of having my data available remotely, especially when it's on the cloud. If that data is compromised.. then what? I'm f*cked. Link:
12TB WD My Cloud EX4 Personal Cloud Storage (4x3TB) - WDBWWD0120KBK - Scan.co.uk
WD Link:
http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.aspx?id=1170

For the same price, I could get a ready-to-go out of the box box instead of building it myself. The WD Red's for 4 are about £300/$600 alone! Before any case, RAM, mobo etc. So I'm probably saving money and time in the long run although the idea of building my own NAS server keeps humming in my ear.

Any opinions on the pre-built systems?


----------



## Fjandr (Sep 26, 2012)

No, you wouldn't be able to use software RAID if your controller fails, unless you are using the controller just to connect the drives and always run software RAID.


----------



## Vadigor (Apr 19, 2009)

Given that you only mention owning a gaming PC and laptop, I'm highly doubtful that you'll require anything even _close_ to 8-12 TBs of storage. The whole reason some of us suggested buying a ready-built NAS was to save a great deal of money on useless specs.

I'd recommend that you get a decent and affordable consumer NAS (not those pro-sumer WDs you linked) with removable HDDs. If you later decide that you want bigger storage or the warm, glowing feeling of building your own system you can then use those disks for a new build.

If you still want to go for a DIY solution, try to list out your exact requirements for this system in regards to performance, features and capacity.


----------



## gasd90 (May 28, 2014)

I won't need 8TB typically speaking Vadigor. But does anyone really fill a 1TB personal hard drive? It's pretty hard for the average Joe who walks into a well known PC retailer to fill such a huge amount of data. 

I just don't see the point in a 1TB NAS server. It seems a little pointless. A little pretentious maybe having such a system, such a purpose and then having only 1TB. Whereas 8TB (presuming it never breaks down or develops a fatal fault which totally makes it unusable) can be flexible for many years to come. And then I'd have some what of purpose to deliberately make sure I make a backup of all my files and probably might become a more organized person because of it lol 

And Vadigor, you mentioned just buying an off the market personal NAS box. I see most of them are cloud orientated. I believe I'm not the only one out there that believes cloud storage is safe especially in the hands of those without a white/black hat background. I see some look really nice, have decent features but it just shouts 'CHEAP' to me. A simple machine built for next to nothing and shipped to a retailer and costs double the price. 

Whats wrong with prebuilt NAS servers I've mentioned? I see good reviews online?

And ideally my requirements are:
- Headless NAS server for home use
- Preferably as portable as possible due to relocations
- High quality reliable hard drives
- Decent motherboard specifications in case of sudden change back to a Windows environment and eventuality of needing to plug in a monitor

Ideally going to be spending around £600-700/$1000-1200.


----------



## Fjandr (Sep 26, 2012)

I'd make two arrays and periodically back up to one, leaving it offline at all times it's not actively backing up the active array.

Actually, my backups are exactly that. The backup server spends 99% of its time powered off. I only spin it up to make or restore backups.


----------



## gasd90 (May 28, 2014)

Fjandr said:


> I'd make two arrays and periodically back up to one, leaving it offline at all times it's not actively backing up the active array.
> 
> Actually, my backups are exactly that. The backup server spends 99% of its time powered off. I only spin it up to make or restore backups.


Sounds like a great idea. RAID 1 suggestable for 3 of the 4 drives and the fourth being a standalone actual backup drive?


----------



## Vadigor (Apr 19, 2009)

The thing about the NAS units you mentioned are that they're very much surplus to requirements for your scenario. If portability is a big concern then a dedicated NAS instead of SFF server is a better choice.

As you want quality components, the best thing would be to get a NAS enclosure without drives and buy those separately so you're sure that they're decent.

If value-for-money is not a concern, the units you linked to would be a good choice.


----------



## gasd90 (May 28, 2014)

On second thought, anyone rate the Synology DS412+?
Seen some pretty awful reviews on file transfer speed. Any of you guys know why? Is it user error? Or actually down to the manufactuer?

Here is a link for you guys, this is just the enclosure without disks.
"http://www.newegg.com/global/uk/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822108113


----------



## Fjandr (Sep 26, 2012)

RAID 1 is mirroring, so typically you would have an even number of drives in the array.


----------



## gasd90 (May 28, 2014)

Fjandr said:


> RAID 1 is mirroring, so typically you would have an even number of drives in the array.


That being said, you need a minimum of 2 drives for RAID 1. You mention having an array for mirroring and a drive that is solely for backup with the use of no redundancy, so I could probably use RAID 0 if I got another 2 drives seeing as RAID 0 is striping, no mirror, no parity, no redundancy. RAID 1 for mirroring and RAID 0 for backup?


----------



## Fjandr (Sep 26, 2012)

If you're running RAID 0, you'd use that for your primary drives. The only purpose of RAID 0 is to increase your read and write speeds.


----------



## Vadigor (Apr 19, 2009)

I don't have enough experience with all the possible NAS units, perhaps the good folks over at the Hard Drive Support subforum would be able to help you better.


----------



## gasd90 (May 28, 2014)

Fjandr said:


> If you're running RAID 0, you'd use that for your primary drives. The only purpose of RAID 0 is to increase your read and write speeds.


I understand. But I've read somewhere that RAID should be used as a data protection tool not for backup so presuming the HDDs were big enough individually, I could have a mirror/stripe array like RAID 10 over the space of 4 HDDs and the last remaining HDD as a backup disk with no array, but I suggested RAID 0 because obviously the read/write speed is going to increase but there will be no redundancy but I've read in a few places that RAID should be used for data protection and not necessarily as a backup facility. That being said, if I had RAID 0 on one drive, I could in theory keep a copy of that data on my RAID 10 array, maybe even externally if I so required via eSATA for example and then I'd have a backup of a backup of a backup in 3 locations and the RAID 10 still there for data protection for the rest of my data.

Am I on the right track here with this? :huh:


----------



## Fjandr (Sep 26, 2012)

You're correct. RAID should not be used as a backup, though if you have an offline backup set you could use RAID on it if there was a specific reason for doing so. It's usually best to reduce the complexity of your backup solution as much as practicably possible though.

RAID 10 is the best of both RAID 0 and RAID 1, though obviously with the drawback that you lose half of your physical disk space. I wholeheartedly support RAID 10 solutions in cases where users want good protection and can afford the disk cost.

You can't use RAID on a single drive, regardless of the RAID level. It will always require a minimum of two drives. If your single disk is as large as your array, you could use it as a backup with no issues.

What it all comes down to is how much protecting your data is worth to you. At a certain point you have diminishing returns when considering the benefit you get for the cost required.


----------



## gasd90 (May 28, 2014)

Excellent. Now I understand. I've been doing a lot of reading about RAID recently, it seems like a great method of storage and interests me quite a bit. I was thinking RAID 1 to begin with, simple mirrored array but if I'm right in saying... if one drive goes down then the array is screwed until you choose to get a replacement drive. Seeing that WD Red's have an annual fail rate of 3.9% - the likelihood of that happening in a home NAS server is second to none, unless the drive is shipped faulty then what the heck, send it back right?

That being said. RAID 10 sounds great because it's mirror and stripe together. So I'm getting performance on R/W speeds and mirroring also. Correct? So if I have a 4 bay enclosure with 4 HDDs, all WD Red's, all (eventually... cost an all) 4TB HDDs that gives me 16TB but with RAID 10 gives me 8TB, I'll have 8TB usable storage and the rest will be reserved for mirroring and striping and I should be okay if a few drives mess up on me.

So in theory, a NAS server is really just a file server on a network. Companies sell it as backup, but the majority of them use it for RAID which is not ideal for backing up your files so it's really down to how well you know what you are doing and like you said, how much protecting data is worth to the likes of you and I. So if I did want an actual backup server, I'm best off just building a cheap system, throwing in a few gigs of RAM and a few nicely sized HDDs and then I'd have essentially, my NAS server for the storage of said files and a file server for the actual backup of the files.

I can see this getting complicated and expensive but it just goes to show how the companies piece together marketing to those that know no wiser. These boxes are designed for redundancy. Not really backing up data. So it's an enterprise solution for files to hide away until they are needed and in the likelihood of a workstation going down, a copy of the file is on a NAS server which essentially to most is a backup but the reason it is there is because the eventuality of a hard drive failure is covered by the RAID principle. Which makes it a storage solution not a backup solution. Seeing as it would be more cost effective and wiser to have a backup offline, on a file server that only spins when you are making an actual backup. 

I'm sure I'm getting this right, or so I hope.


----------



## Fjandr (Sep 26, 2012)

gasd90 said:


> if one drive goes down then the array is screwed until you choose to get a replacement drive.


No, the array will still operate just fine, but without any redundancy.



> That being said. RAID 10 sounds great because it's mirror and stripe together. So I'm getting performance on R/W speeds and mirroring also. Correct? So if I have a 4 bay enclosure with 4 HDDs, all WD Red's, all (eventually... cost an all) 4TB HDDs that gives me 16TB but with RAID 10 gives me 8TB, I'll have 8TB usable storage and the rest will be reserved for mirroring and striping and I should be okay if a few drives mess up on me.


Yes. You get increased RW speeds, especially when they're sequential. As for redundancy, you can lose a drive in each mirror set before your data is at risk. You have to have both drives in a single mirror set fail in order to lose data.



> So in theory, a NAS server is really just a file server on a network.


In a very general sense, yes. Practically, your machine just sees it as another hard drive. A file server is much more complicated.



> So if I did want an actual backup server, I'm best off just building a cheap system, throwing in a few gigs of RAM and a few nicely sized HDDs and then I'd have essentially, my NAS server for the storage of said files and a file server for the actual backup of the files.


Yes. You could set up a NAS VM, which would show up as an HDD to your machines, and have the server back up the contents of that to other drives.



> NAS server which essentially to most is a backup [...]


You can use it that way, but it's really just another HDD, albeit not physically in the box that's accessing it.



> Which makes it a storage solution not a backup solution.


That depends entirely on how you use it. It can be one, the other, or both.


----------



## Vadigor (Apr 19, 2009)

gasd90 said:


> But I've read somewhere that RAID should be used as a data protection tool not for backup


Maybe in my earlier post? I think you've mostly reached the right conclusion and indeed a RAID array is not a true backup solution and shouldn't be used as such. As this excellent serverfault answer states, it doesn't protect against:

File corruption
Human error (deleting files by mistake)
Catastrophic damage (someone dumps water onto the server)
Virus'
Software bugs that wipe out data ..

In other words RAID1 will only help secure against single-drive failure. It's main use case is to prevent data downtime as the array will remain up as long as one drive does.

So I probably wouldn't mirror an active drive but it could make sense to mirror your backup drive, guaranteeing that your backups are safe. This is more convenient than creating multiple backups or backing up your backups but still has some inherent risks if they run in the same network.


----------

