Planning my first build

[migrc]

Hi!

I'm planning on building a TrueNAS machine. After reading through the forum, I have compiled a list of components that I believe will suit my use case. I would greatly appreciate any feedback.

My intention is for the machine to function solely as a NAS, without running a media server or any virtualization tasks (for which I plan to use a refurbished SFF PC with PROXMOX).
The following are the types of data I plan to store:

• Photos and videos from our family's smartphones
• Personal documents
• Backups for some virtual machines
• Media files that will be served by Jellyfin (running on another machine)

Here are the components I have selected so far:

• Motherboard: Supermicro X11SSL-F (around €150, used).
• CPU: Intel Pentium G4600 (around €30-40, used).
• RAM: 1x 16GB ECC from Kingston (KSM26ED8/16HD) (around €50, new).
• Boot drive: 120GB Kingston A400 (€15, new).
• Storage: 4x 4TB WD Red Plus (around €100 each, new) in RAIDZ2.
• Power supply: BitFenix Whisper M 450W 80+ Gold (€85, new).
• Case: Fractal Design Node 804 (€140, new).
• Backup: 2x 2TB Seagate Barracuda Compute (€45 each) in external cases.

Now, I would like to share some of the main concerns I have. That doesn't mean I'm not open to receive advice on any other of part of the build.

CPU
Since the server will primarily serve as a file-sharing platform, the hardware guide suggests that the Pentium processor should suffice. My question is, should I consider spending a bit more on a more powerful CPU, such as the i3-6300 (around €40-50) or even a Xeon E3-1220 v6 (around €75), for a better overall experience? Or will I not notice a significant difference in this particular scenario?

RAM
I believe that starting with 16GB of RAM should be enough. Based on this, I have chosen to opt for a single 16GB module instead of two 8GB modules. This way, if I find the need to increase the RAM, I can always reach the motherboard's maximum capacity of 64GB without having to replace the initially purchased RAM. Is this reasoning correct? Additionally, does it make sense to ever have 64GB of RAM in this machine for my specific use case?

Boot drive
Instead of a SATA SSD, I have considered using an M.2 PCIe adapter, possibly one with space for two drives, and configuring them in a mirror setup. This way, I would still have two SATA ports available to install more hard drives in the future. What are your thoughts on this approach?

Storage
I was contemplating two options: either four 4TB drives or six 2TB drives. Based on what I have read in the forum, fewer larger disks is generally preferred over more smaller disks. In my case, four drives cost less and consume less power. I cannot see any downsides, so I am fairly confident about this decision. Am I mistaken in any way?
Regarding the choice of hard drive model, I have selected the WD Red Plus drives because they are designed for NAS use and are reported to be quieter than the Seagate Ironwolf, although slightly more expensive. I am open to suggestions on this matter, including other manufacturers or models.

Backup
My plan is to keep one of the drives at home and the other at my parents' place. I am primarily interested in backing up photos and personal data, and I am not as concerned about media files. Will a 2TB disk be sufficient for this purpose?



That covers everything. I await your responses.
Thank you for your time and for sharing your wisdom.

 

[Davvo]

Now, I would like to share some of the main concerns I have. That doesn't mean I'm not open to receive advice on any other of part of the build.

Overall it's a solid build, minus the PSU which I don't know about.

CPU
Since the server will primarily serve as a file-sharing platform, the hardware guide suggests that the Pentium processor should suffice. My question is, should I consider spending a bit more on a more powerful CPU, such as the i3-6300 (around €40-50) or even a Xeon E3-1220 v6 (around €75), for a better overall experience? Or will I not notice a significant difference in this particular scenario?

In your case you want higher clock speeds over core numbers; since you are not running storage on SSDs, I don't see the need for a more performing CPU.

RAM
I believe that starting with 16GB of RAM should be enough. Based on this, I have chosen to opt for a single 16GB module instead of two 8GB modules. This way, if I find the need to increase the RAM, I can always reach the motherboard's maximum capacity of 64GB without having to replace the initially purchased RAM. Is this reasoning correct? Additionally, does it make sense to ever have 64GB of RAM in this machine for my specific use case?

16 GB is perfectly fine for your needs, more just helps with performance (mainly reads of frequently accessed files). I do wonder why you picked SCALE as OS though, since your use case perfectly fits CORE (and CORE has better memory management since Linux only allows half of your total memory to go in cache): consider CORE as an alternative.

Boot drive
Instead of a SATA SSD, I have considered using an M.2 PCIe adapter, possibly one with space for two drives, and configuring them in a mirror setup. This way, I would still have two SATA ports available to install more hard drives in the future. What are your thoughts on this approach?

Make sure to buy a decent adapter if you go that route; I would go for other motherboards if I wanted a m.2 slot, but the prices might not help. I suggest you using a high-endurance USB stick instead since the motherboard has a USB slot; personally I use this, the 32GB model. Along with a script that regularly mails me the config I sleep relaxed.

Storage
I was contemplating two options: either four 4TB drives or six 2TB drives. Based on what I have read in the forum, fewer larger disks is generally preferred over more smaller disks. In my case, four drives cost less and consume less power. I cannot see any downsides, so I am fairly confident about this decision. Am I mistaken in any way?

Not in any meaningful way.

Storage
Regarding the choice of hard drive model, I have selected the WD Red Plus drives because they are designed for NAS use and are reported to be quieter than the Seagate Ironwolf, although slightly more expensive. I am open to suggestions on this matter, including other manufacturers or models.

Personally I run Ironwolfs (3TB) and they are really quiet; always going with the lower RPM number gives you the most benefits.

Backup
My plan is to keep one of the drives at home and the other at my parents' place. I am primarily interested in backing up photos and personal data, and I am not as concerned about media files. Will a 2TB disk be sufficient for this purpose?

It depends on how much you have to backup: 2TB over the 5 and something of total space in the NAS; to me it looks a bit underwhelming, but only you can tell.

 

[joeschmuck]

CPU
Since the server will primarily serve as a file-sharing platform, the hardware guide suggests that the Pentium processor should suffice. My question is, should I consider spending a bit more on a more powerful CPU, such as the i3-6300 (around €40-50) or even a Xeon E3-1220 v6 (around €75), for a better overall experience? Or will I not notice a significant difference in this particular scenario?

It depends on the type of file sharing going on. If this were to do a lot of office high volume transfers, my personal preference is the Xeon, however if this is just for home use and sharing files, Pentium should be fine. I have an Atom CPU, it works great as a home file server and can saturate a 1Gbit Ethernet connection.

RAM
I believe that starting with 16GB of RAM should be enough. Based on this, I have chosen to opt for a single 16GB module instead of two 8GB modules. This way, if I find the need to increase the RAM, I can always reach the motherboard's maximum capacity of 64GB without having to replace the initially purchased RAM. Is this reasoning correct? Additionally, does it make sense to ever have 64GB of RAM in this machine for my specific use case?

16GB of RAM is fine for a simple home file sharing machine. My TrueNAS VM only is allocated 16GB RAM. And that is smart to think about the future expansion should you need it. For a home machine for simple file sharing use, I would not imagine you would ever need to go over 32GB RAM, but I think 16GB is a good place to start. Evaluate and if (only if) you find out you are running short on RAM, you can add one more stick.

Boot drive
Instead of a SATA SSD, I have considered using an M.2 PCIe adapter, possibly one with space for two drives, and configuring them in a mirror setup. This way, I would still have two SATA ports available to install more hard drives in the future. What are your thoughts on this approach?

I say use a single SSD for now. In the future NVMe and the adapters are likely to be less expensive, when/if you decide you need to add more storage space. Once your system is configured then backup the configuration file and put in a safe place. This will enable you to easily recover should your boot drive need to be rebuilt.

Storage
I was contemplating two options: either four 4TB drives or six 2TB drives. Based on what I have read in the forum, fewer larger disks is generally preferred over more smaller disks. In my case, four drives cost less and consume less power. I cannot see any downsides, so I am fairly confident about this decision. Am I mistaken in any way?
Regarding the choice of hard drive model, I have selected the WD Red Plus drives because they are designed for NAS use and are reported to be quieter than the Seagate Ironwolf, although slightly more expensive. I am open to suggestions on this matter, including other manufacturers or models.

You should do some more reading about this. There are benefits and minuses to each practice. If this is a simple backup and file sharing device,
a RAIDZ2 of four 4TB drives would be fine but you get about 7.4 TB of storage and longer resilvering times. Six 2TB drives gets you about 7.7 TB of storage and twice as fast resilvering times. You also have IOPS but I'm hitting on the main aspects in your situation. So capacity is similar. Also as you pointed out, more drives, more heat. This also means you need to ensure good cooling air flow. Either option is fine, I personally would go for the four 4TB drives. I'm running four 6TB drives myself in my main NAS unit, where I was previously running six 2TB drives, then I made the change. ENSURE you DO NOT purchase SMR drives!!!!!

Backup
My plan is to keep one of the drives at home and the other at my parents' place. I am primarily interested in backing up photos and personal data, and I am not as concerned about media files. Will a 2TB disk be sufficient for this purpose?

Now this is a tricky one. Are you planning to create single drive stripe for each disk and having this device directly connected to the NAS? If so, how? I would recommend you plan to backup your important files to a removable USB hard drive/SSD through a separate computer. This can be an automated process to keep files synced. There are many ways to do this, it's up to you on what you want to do.

 

[migrc]

Overall it's a solid build, minus the PSU which I don't know about.


In your case you want higher clock speeds over core numbers; since you are not running storage on SSDs, I don't see the need for a more performing CPU.


16 GB is perfectly fine for your needs, more just helps with performance (mainly reads of frequently accessed files). I do wonder why you picked SCALE as OS though, since your use case perfectly fits CORE (and CORE has better memory management since Linux only allows half of your total memory to go in cache): consider CORE as an alternative.


Make sure to buy a decent adapter if you go that route; I would go for other motherboards if I wanted a m.2 slot, but the prices might not help. I suggest you using a high-endurance USB stick instead since the motherboard has a USB slot; personally I use this, the 32GB model. Along with a script that regularly mails me the config I sleep relaxed.


Not in any meaningful way.


Personally I run Ironwolfs (3TB) and they are really quiet; always going with the lower RPM number gives you the most benefits.


It depends on how much you have to backup: 2TB over the 5 and something of total space in the NAS; to me it looks a bit underwhelming, but only you can tell.

Thank you for answering. You helped me clarify a lot.

The selection of SCALE was mostly due to my familiarity with Linux, and because CORE is, as far as I understand, pickier about hardware selection. Additionally, I wasn't aware of the better memory management of CORE. That being said, I'm going to consider going with CORE since the hardware is appropriate, and it gives me an opportunity to dive into FreeBSD, with which I have very little experience.

Regarding the power supply, I read good reviews of this unit, and it has a really good price. Could you please suggest some alternatives in the 400-450W range, which I believe is the most suitable?

 

[Etorix]

TrueNAS being an appliance, you won't see much of the underlying Linux or FreeBSD, unless you really want to. But Core is the better choice for file sharing.
For 10 E, I would take a Core i3 over a Pentium any time. Just in case. The low-end Xeon E6 is an i3 with Xeon branding, no added value.

The only issue I can see is that Barracuda Compute are SMR, which ZFS does not like, and may be very sluggish depending on how you handle backup and updates.

Happy building!

 

[migrc]

It depends on the type of file sharing going on. If this were to do a lot of office high volume transfers, my personal preference is the Xeon, however if this is just for home use and sharing files, Pentium should be fine. I have an Atom CPU, it works great as a home file server and can saturate a 1Gbit Ethernet connection.


16GB of RAM is fine for a simple home file sharing machine. My TrueNAS VM only is allocated 16GB RAM. And that is smart to think about the future expansion should you need it. For a home machine for simple file sharing use, I would not imagine you would ever need to go over 32GB RAM, but I think 16GB is a good place to start. Evaluate and if (only if) you find out you are running short on RAM, you can add one more stick.


I say use a single SSD for now. In the future NVMe and the adapters are likely to be less expensive, when/if you decide you need to add more storage space. Once your system is configured then backup the configuration file and put in a safe place. This will enable you to easily recover should your boot drive need to be rebuilt.


You should do some more reading about this. There are benefits and minuses to each practice. If this is a simple backup and file sharing device,
a RAIDZ2 of four 4TB drives would be fine but you get about 7.4 TB of storage and longer resilvering times. Six 2TB drives gets you about 7.7 TB of storage and twice as fast resilvering times. You also have IOPS but I'm hitting on the main aspects in your situation. So capacity is similar. Also as you pointed out, more drives, more heat. This also means you need to ensure good cooling air flow. Either option is fine, I personally would go for the four 4TB drives. I'm running four 6TB drives myself in my main NAS unit, where I was previously running six 2TB drives, then I made the change. ENSURE you DO NOT purchase SMR drives!!!!!


Now this is a tricky one. Are you planning to create single drive stripe for each disk and having this device directly connected to the NAS? If so, how? I would recommend you plan to backup your important files to a removable USB hard drive/SSD through a separate computer. This can be an automated process to keep files synced. There are many ways to do this, it's up to you on what you want to do.

Thank you.
I think I probably go with a single SSD, at least initially. It seems the most straightforward way. Later on, in case I need the SATA port for storage, I will consider another solution. I think it's better to start simple and leave the complications for when I gain more experience.

 

[migrc]

TrueNAS being an appliance, you won't see much of the underlying Linux or FreeBSD, unless you really want to. But Core is the better choice for file sharing.
For 10 E, I would take a Core i3 over a Pentium any time. Just in case. The low-end Xeon E6 is an i3 with Xeon branding, no added value.

The only issue I can see is that Barracuda Compute are SMR, which ZFS does not like, and may be very sluggish depending on how you handle backup and updates.

Happy building!

Thank you for your response.

I'll probably end up going with Core.

Regarding the processor, precisely what made me hesitate was the narrow price difference between then Pentium and the i3.
What about power consumption? I suppose there isn't much difference, am I right?

 

[Etorix]

What matters for a NAS is power draw at idle. There's nothing to gain here by picking a part over another.

 

[Davvo]

What about power consumption?

SCALE should have better power saving management iirc.

 

[fastzombies]

Boot drive
Instead of a SATA SSD, I have considered using an M.2 PCIe adapter, possibly one with space for two drives, and configuring them in a mirror setup. This way, I would still have two SATA ports available to install more hard drives in the future. What are your thoughts on this approach?

I just went thorough this. I have an ASRock X570M Pro4 AM4 board with 1x16 PCIe bifurcation support. I picked up a 10GTek 4x4 PCIe M.2 adapter for $26 and two Samsung OEM 64G 2242 for $12 each. If your board does not support this, you will need a card that does and suddenly you are looking at ~$200 +/- for the card which is almost what the motherboard cost. Though I have seen bifurcation cards as low as $140, but who knows what you are getting. I needed low profile for 2U rackmount which narrows choices so I was fortunate to pick the board I did as I did not know about bifurcation before then.

I set the PCIe slot for 2x8 and Scale install detects them and lets me choose them for boot drives. This frees up the two M.2 slots on the motherboard for a very fast SSD pool for apps or whatever I want to run quick. The card still has two more M.2 slots should I want to add another bus speed SSD pool for any reason.

So far it seems to be working.