Going against the recommended

[Bill W]

I've just started my FreeNAS investigation for use as a home file server, possibly media server. I've not read a lot yet but have noted that the recommendation would be to NOT use older hardware especially if it doesn't match the recommendations. I guess this goes against the attractiveness of FreeNAS/ZFS for home use. I'm about to retire and don't want to put much into a file server for "home" use. I do have enough technical knowledge to build what I need as I've worked in the IT field for most of my career (IT Director now). So, the way I look at it...

1) Continue using my older Dell server as-is - Windows 2008 R2, 8GB RAM, no RAID, no ECC, SATA drives. Originally built for ESXi and HyperV testing running without touching for a number of years (other than updates)
OR
2) Purchase a cheap 2 bay NAS device like a Synology DiskStation DS216j w/WD Red drives

Because what I'm hearing is FreeNAS/ZFS on my hardware above would be less reliable that either of the two options above - would it?

Note, I'm not building something for a mission critical purpose, and I backup.

Bill

 

[nojohnny101]

FreeNAS as you noted, is meant to be installed on quality server grade hardware that meets minimum specifications. Others have installed on hardware below the recommendations and it has worked but when things go wrong there exists no sympathy or much help because rules were not followed.

Now having said that, why did you want to go with something like FreeNAS when there is plenty of other NAS OSes out there that will most likely do what you want? It might be worth looking into those if you don't want to commit to buying speced hardware.

 

[melloa]

1) Continue using my older Dell server as-is - Windows 2008 R2, 8GB RAM, no RAID, no ECC, SATA drives. Originally built for ESXi and HyperV testing running without touching for a number of years (other than updates)

without complete specs is hard, but I hope you can add RAM to this box. I used old 2950s with 32G RAM and were great ... but the noise!

Also consider the number of HDs you want to add and future expansion of the box. If it is a transition for testing and learning or something you want to use for years to come ;)

I've tested several two HDs solutions and didn't like the limit of HDs. Your call for sure, but I like a solution that let me add pools by adding a new SAS, increase the size of my pool by changing the HDs with bigger ones, etc.

ah ... and welcome to FreeNAS.

 

[Bill W]

FreeNAS as you noted, is meant to be installed on quality server grade hardware that meets minimum specifications. Others have installed on hardware below the recommendations and it has worked but when things go wrong there exists no sympathy or much help because rules were not followed.

Not having said that, why did you want to go with something like FreeNAS when there is plenty of other NAS OSes out there that will most likely do what you want. It might be worth looking into those if you don't want to commit to buying speced hardware.

Thanks for the input...

I thought of simplifying what I currently use (Windows 2008 server) for simple file sharing at home, FreeNAS "seemed" to be a good solution until I read the minimum requirements. That led me to my question. It sounds like FreeNAS and ZFS is inherently troublesome compared to Windows 2008 on similar hardware" to what I'm running now. In other words, it has the potential to be a great solution but on older hardware NTFS is a better choice. I've been using NTFS for years at home and in a corporate environment without any problems with data loss on sometimes less than ideal hardware.
In addition, like I mentioned above, I can purchase cheap NAS hardware for simple file sharing. Yes, if utmost performance, reliability, and scalibility is desired then its a different discussion. I'm confident that my files are safe today as I backup, I don't just rely on my shared storage. In addition I image my home computers regularly - again I don't "need" to spend much in my opinion.
I was just trying to determine if FreeNAS was a solution but it sounds like it would be less reliable unless I want to invest more money in the solution.

 

[Bill W]

without complete specs is hard, but I hope you can add RAM to this box. I used old 2950s with 32G RAM and were great ... but the noise!

Also consider the number of HDs you want to add and future expansion of the box. If it is a transition for testing and learning or something you want to use for years to come ;)

Thanks, I could easily add additional RAM. Two drives (RAID 1) is all I need - don't need the power draw, noise, and heat of many drives. Anything I need long term is backuped to other DVD media. My shared storage is for things I would like immediate access to and 2-3 terabyte is more than sufficient.

 

[Jailer]

Still trying to figure out why you're discussing it when you seem to have already made up your mind........

 

[danb35]

It sounds like FreeNAS and ZFS is inherently troublesome compared to Windows 2008 on similar hardware" to what I'm running now.

Not really. ECC RAM is important for data integrity with any OS and any filesystem. Without it, there's no guarantee that the data that gets written to disk is the data you want to write to the disk. Similarly, there's no guarantee that the data sent over the network is the data that was read from the disk. RAM is pretty darn reliable, so it isn't a problem that comes up very often, but it does come up, and you usually have no way of knowing about it (as it happens, my system has a recurring memory error--I need to power it down and remove/replace the affected DIMM--but I couldn't have known about that without ECC).

There are two basic reasons that we tend to insist on ECC RAM around here:

1. ZFS is otherwise robust enough that to use it without ECC RAM is rather like putting a screen door on a submarine, and
2. We don't like to see people lose their data--we assume that you're using FreeNAS because you care about your data and want to protect it.

Will FreeNAS run without ECC? Sure. Will your data be at any greater risk than with any other OS or filesystem? Not really. But you won't be getting the best benefit out of ZFS that you could be.

 

[Mirfster]

Dell T20 or Lenovo TS140...

 

[danb35]

Dell T20 or Lenovo TS140...

Indeed. Two good, inexpensive, prebuilt, suitable boxes.

 

[Stux]

The hard minimum limit is the 8GB of ram, which you meet.

It should work. Keep backups.

 

[Bill W]

Not really. ECC RAM is important for data integrity with any OS and any filesystem. Without it, there's no guarantee that the data that gets written to disk is the data you want to write to the disk. Similarly, there's no guarantee that the data sent over the network is the data that was read from the disk. RAM is pretty darn reliable, so it isn't a problem that comes up very often, but it does come up, and you usually have no way of knowing about it (as it happens, my system has a recurring memory error--I need to power it down and remove/replace the affected DIMM--but I couldn't have known about that without ECC).

There are two basic reasons that we tend to insist on ECC RAM around here:

1. ZFS is otherwise robust enough that to use it without ECC RAM is rather like putting a screen door on a submarine, and
2. We don't like to see people lose their data--we assume that you're using FreeNAS because you care about your data and want to protect it.

Will FreeNAS run without ECC? Sure. Will your data be at any greater risk than with any other OS or filesystem? Not really. But you won't be getting the best benefit out of ZFS that you could be.

Your last comment is basically what I was trying to determine. I didn't know if there was something inherent in its design that made it less reliable than say NTFS or a cheap Linux NAS if the minimum hardware specifications were not met. I fully understand recommendations to build the most robust solution. Again, if I'm building a mission critical solution it doesn't pay to skimp but if I'm attempting to build an inexpensive solution for home use I don't have a problem with it being no better or worse than an NTFS solution on some less than ideal hardware.

Thanks