BUILD New build, comments and advices ?

[arameen]

Hi
this is my first freeNAS machine. I have a nas4free machine and vill move all data to my freeNAS. After reading serveral guides, accepting advices on my previous build i come up with a complety new build and would like to konw your advices and read your comments.
My server will be uses mainly to store files, at most maybe i stream one movie at time if i will watch something. I will not be reading or writing much either, only store safe there. I choose freeNAS beause i want data safety. But to be honest i am not sure how to configure my zpool/s despite i rad the guide. anyway, this is my hardware:



Motherboard Supermicro X10SL7-F-O
I need at least 8 SATA ports. So I guess I need to do some flashing of the built-in LSI to act IT mode ?
Formfactor uATX should fit very easy in my Cosmos II unless serverformfactors are different than desktopformfactors ?


CPU
Intel® Core™ i3-4150 Processor (3M Cache, 3.50 GHz)
OR
Intel® Core™ i3-4130T Processor (3M Cache, 2.90 GHz)
I want to use encryption why I skipped Celeron and the cheapest i3 I found were those 2 unless I missed something ?


32 GB RAM
Either:
4x 8GB DDR3 1.35V-1600 ECC Samsung M391B1G73QH0-YK0 (more expensive)
or
4x 8GB DDR3-1600 ECC Samsung M391B1G73BH0-CK0 (the cheaper one)
Not sure what the difference is between those memories expect the voltage? What that could mean for my freeNAS ?


Harddrives (Already purchased!)
2x 4TB WD RED 7200RPM
6x 3TB Seagate 7200RPM
Not sure how I will configure the zpool, any suggestions? (Yes i read the hardware guides including the one about zpools, raids .... but still not so sure)
I don’t mind having several pools in my machine. If one drive goes down in a pool I disconnect the whole pool until I got a substitute for my drive then online the pool again. While my other pools are unaffected. And it seems somehow not so flexible when putting to many harddrives in one pool (must be same size …..)
What matter when I decided the configuration of the pool/s is that I keep parity control.
Opinions?


CoolerMaster COSMOS II
The chassi got fans inside except the already purchased fans I own.
(Already purchased) 4x Noctua 120mm and 1x 140 Noctua fans.
Eventually when I got the chassi I will order additional fans when I see the exact configuration inside. Depending on the configuration I would like to add 200 mm and even have to monitor airflow somehow. Guess only way would be to see the temperatures in the freeNAS gui and add fans after that is needed ?


PSU
When it comes to brand I will choose “be quiet!” unless someone got something very convincing why not choose that brand.
I did calculations on several sites and they suggest for the hardware above something between 300 to 450 Watt PSU. I even read that it would be good if the PSU works on 40% load all time.
That would mean at least 700 Watt here ?
Somehow this sounds very much for my server containing only disks! My highend desktop uses 650 Watt and it got a videocard. My nas4free machine uses 550W (working perfectly since 2 years back!)
In the future i may expand with drives.
So what is your suggestions on how many Watts to use on the hardware above?


Opinions, suggestions, advices ?

 

[danb35]

uATX is uATX; there isn't a special "server uATX". Yes, you'll want to flash the onboard controller to IT mode. The CPUs look fine, though you'll want to make sure you read up carefully on encryption before you set up your pool that way--there are some risks involved there. You probably don't need 32 GB of RAM; 16 GB would likely be adequate, but more never hurts. For pool configuration, I'd probably put all your disks into a single RAIDZ2 array. This means that the extra 1 TB on each of your 4TB drives won't be used, but I think it's still going to be the most space-efficient use of your existing disks while retaining redundancy. You can later expand your pool by replacing the 3TB disks with 4TB disks--once they're all replaced, your pool capacity will increase by ~ 6TB. Your motherboard will support 6 more disks if needed or desired.

 

[Ericloewe]

The X10SL7-F will easily fit anything that takes microATX.

Forget about the T models. Pure waste of money - you don't get lower power consumption, but you do get worse performance.

Just make sure the RAM you buy is listed by Supermicro. Don't bother with 1.35V if it's more expensive, though.

 

[arameen]

uATX is uATX; there isn't a special "server uATX". Yes, you'll want to flash the onboard controller to IT mode. The CPUs look fine, though you'll want to make sure you read up carefully on encryption before you set up your pool that way--there are some risks involved there. You probably don't need 32 GB of RAM; 16 GB would likely be adequate, but more never hurts. For pool configuration, I'd probably put all your disks into a single RAIDZ2 array. This means that the extra 1 TB on each of your 4TB drives won't be used, but I think it's still going to be the most space-efficient use of your existing disks while retaining redundancy. You can later expand your pool by replacing the 3TB disks with 4TB disks--once they're all replaced, your pool capacity will increase by ~ 6TB. Your motherboard will support 6 more disks if needed or desired.

Why not split it into several pools? one pool with the two 4TB and two pools with 3x 3TB.
My current nas4free machine got 2 pools with each 3x 3TB. Each pool can survive 2 disk crashes! i want the same in this case but not sure about the different in terminology, but i guess zfs is zfs ?!

 

[arameen]

The X10SL7-F will easily fit anything that takes microATX.

Forget about the T models. Pure waste of money - you don't get lower power consumption, but you do get worse performance.

Just make sure the RAM you buy is listed by Supermicro. Don't bother with 1.35V if it's more expensive, though.

ok, skipping T CPU.
The Ram is according to the supermicro ram list :)
any idea about PSU Watts ?

 

[Ericloewe]

You'll want to size the PSU for spin-up current. 550W should be ok for 8 7200RPM drives. 650 if you're paranoid.

 

[danb35]

Why not split it into several pools? one pool with the two 4TB and two pools with 3x 3TB.

Why not? Because, as I posted, a single RAIDZ2 vdev with 6 x 3 TB + 2 x 4 TB is going to give you the greatest capacity while retaining reasonable redundancy. Capacity for that configuration is ~ 18 TB, and it can tolerate the loss of any two disks without any data loss. The configuration you propose, assuming the two three-disk pools are in a RAIDZ1 configuration, would have a net capacity of 16 TB, and would tolerate the loss of up to three disks, but only if they're the right three disks. Loss of two disks within the same pool would result in total failure. RAIDZ1 isn't recommended, though it's still likely to be pretty widely used.

If you want greater redundancy, you could set up all your disks in a RAIDZ3 configuration instead. This would give ~ 15 TB of net capacity, and would tolerate the loss of any three disks without data loss.

I tend to favor a single pool over multiple pools because it allows me to freely divide up my storage space as needed, and because it's the way ZFS was designed to work from the beginning. Certainly you can have multiple pools, but to my way of thinking combining all your storage into a single pool is cleaner and easier to work with.

My current nas4free machine got 2 pools with each 3x 3TB. Each pool can survive 2 disk crashes!

It's unlikely this is correct. Your options for a three-disk pool are a three-disk stripe, a three-way mirror, or RAIDZ1. If you chose the first, you have no redundancy at all; your pools cannot survive any disk failures. If you chose the second, your pools can tolerate the loss of two disks, but each pool will have only the capacity of one disk (i.e., each pool would be 3 TB). If your pools are in a RAIDZ1 configuration (which I'd think is more likely), each pool would be twice the capacity of a single disk (6 TB), but can survive only the loss of a single disk.

 

[arameen]

Why not? Because, as I posted, a single RAIDZ2 vdev with 6 x 3 TB + 2 x 4 TB is going to give you the greatest capacity while retaining reasonable redundancy. Capacity for that configuration is ~ 18 TB, and it can tolerate the loss of any two disks without any data loss. The configuration you propose, assuming the two three-disk pools are in a RAIDZ1 configuration, would have a net capacity of 16 TB, and would tolerate the loss of up to three disks, but only if they're the right three disks. Loss of two disks within the same pool would result in total failure. RAIDZ1 isn't recommended, though it's still likely to be pretty widely used.

If you want greater redundancy, you could set up all your disks in a RAIDZ3 configuration instead. This would give ~ 15 TB of net capacity, and would tolerate the loss of any three disks without data loss.

I tend to favor a single pool over multiple pools because it allows me to freely divide up my storage space as needed, and because it's the way ZFS was designed to work from the beginning. Certainly you can have multiple pools, but to my way of thinking combining all your storage into a single pool is cleaner and easier to work with.


It's unlikely this is correct. Your options for a three-disk pool are a three-disk stripe, a three-way mirror, or RAIDZ1. If you chose the first, you have no redundancy at all; your pools cannot survive any disk failures. If you chose the second, your pools can tolerate the loss of two disks, but each pool will have only the capacity of one disk (i.e., each pool would be 3 TB). If your pools are in a RAIDZ1 configuration (which I'd think is more likely), each pool would be twice the capacity of a single disk (6 TB), but can survive only the loss of a single disk.

Considering I am new and so afraid of a zpool crash, corruption .... with all data dying I am thinking of having at least 2 pools (faster scrubbing too :) !
- One raidz2 with 6 x3 TB as you suggested.
- OneRaidz1 with 3x 4TB (I buy another WD red 4TB so i have 3)
Is it in any way not efficient ? except a little less capacity ?
consider I insist on having my most precious files stored in 2 pools (rsynced) in case one pool dies (I read about many scenarios it could happen). And ofcourse they will be backed up too.
I am aware of the risk with Raidz1 with one of the remaining disks dying before getting a new substitute. But i see that not so likely.
And I even that i can avoid with one of this 2 solutions under the consideration of storing less important files in that zpool:
1) I either disconnect the remaning 2 disks in that raidz1 pool putting it offline until i got a replacment disk and put it all online again.
2) or I use a hot pluggable drive when one of the 3 drives dies. Until i get my replacment drive then substitute the pluggable with it.

What is your opinion about this ?
others, feel free to comment that too :)