BUILD Should I add more RAM?

[Matt Tyree]

I am currently running six 4TB WD Red drives in RAIDZ2.
I put these drives in an old desktop PC while I save up for my final NAS build.

The current build has an older i5 processor with 8GB of RAM. The mobo can handle up to 16GB in its 4 slots. But the slots are already fully populated (4x2GB). That would mean buying an entire new batch of RAM for this already old PC. The question is: Is it worth it? 16GB of RAM for this box would be about $80.

After my new NAS is built, I plan to still utilize this box as a NAS for offsite backups, but with only two 4TB and two 2TB WD Green drives. The six 4TB WD Red drives would move to the new NAS build.

Any insight is appreciated.
Thanks!

 

[nojohnny101]

How long till you have your new box up and running? So you currently have a backup of all critical data?

If it was me, not worth it especially if you haven't seen horrible performance or had a litany of problems. Also it is not going to be needed in my opinion when it becomes a backup box so basically you're spending $80 for what?

 

[Matt Tyree]

How long till you have your new box up and running?

Depends on how quickly I can recover from the $900 I just dropped on the drives. :-D Probably sometime first of the year or so.

So you currently have a backup of all critical data?

The NAS I just built is becoming my backup of my critical data. Previously (currently - copying the backups to the NAS now) my backups were stored on external USB3.0 drives. The NAS will just be for backups. I won't work off the NAS. I have internal drives on my PC that holds the working data. Does that answer your question?
Perhaps too early to tell if the 8GB will cause performance problems.

If it was me, not worth it especially if you haven't seen horrible performance or had a litany of problems. Also it is not going to be needed in my opinion when it becomes a backup box so basically you're spending $80 for what?

That's kinda what I'm thinking, too. Just not worth it for this build being that the RAM coming out of it will basically just be trash. Just wondering if those with far more FreeNAS experience than me (like more than one week) might know of some hurdles that my current build will face.

 

[nojohnny101]

What I meant by asking if you have backups was if you have backups of the data that is currently on the machine you are asking the RAM question about. Because, as is my understanding, it is your primary box for right now.

Reason I ask that is because you are operating with less than recommended RAM.

Another thing to consider is: how long has this box been working without issue? If it has been working for more than a couple of months with regular use, I'd say the probability of something happening in the next 2-3 with no changes of purpose or big changes in load on the box are slim (although not non-existent).

Just my opinion though.

 

[Matt Tyree]

Well, I JUST started using it. Like TODAY. :-D So, no, it's definitely not time-tested. That's why I was polling the community to get some opinions before I have RAM-related problems.

I am just now copying the backup data to the NAS. It has never been used before.

 

[nojohnny101]

Oh. Well in that case I would still advocate for keeping backups (obviously) externally until you get your new box. In the meantime, I would monitor the system with extra care and see what kind of performance/stability you experience.

If you are getting very slow performance or frequent hangs, stutters, etc then you have two choices:
1) shut everything down, as wait until you build your new box.
2) spend $80.

 

[Matt Tyree]

Since the NAS IS a backup, then I technically have a backup in the form of the original files. And I also have an offsite backup that the NAS will mirror to.
But, in the interest of avoiding problems, maybe I should go ahead with the RAM upgrade. Decisions, decisions!

 

[Dice]

I'd not spend a dollar on anything other than savings for a proper box.

 

[Matt Tyree]

I'd not spend a dollar on anything other than savings for a proper box.

Yeah, I get what you're saying. This box will continue to be a NAS, though, even after I build the proper one. It'll just be offsite with less storage in it. Lots of people use old PCs for NAS, just not for critical storage, right?

 

[Dice]

Yeah, I get what you're saying. This box will continue to be a NAS, though, even after I build the proper one. It'll just be offsite with less storage in it. Lots of people use old PCs for NAS, just not for critical storage, right?

"lots of people" is a big overstatement.
Some do.
It takes some skill to manage syncing and backups to make sure errors from the shitty box won't be confused with good data. And vice versa.

 

[Matt Tyree]

To new people looking around for info on FreeNAS (ie, me), they get the indication using an old PC is no problem at all. More research leads to the build I am moving toward, but the old PC still works in the meantime for a backup device.
It sounds like ZFS is more prone to corrupting data than other file systems. Since it absolutely must have server-grade parts or it will apparently corrupt the data. If it's that volatile, I'm not sure I want to use it at all. The data is safer on my external USB drives.

 

[Dice]

you're kind of right. Except that ZFS is not volatile.
I'd consider my data more safe on a bunch of usb drives, provided all files exist on two places - than on a ill prepared freenas box. Any day of the week.
FreeNAS never replaces multiple backups.

For a 2nd or 3rd tier backup solution, an old box might serve its duties well. Just like you are suggesting. But it does not come free from risk. Managing that risk is key.
FreeNAS or ZFS does not know what version is the desired version of a block (redundancy is on block level, not file level). FreeNAS excels at maintaining the correct information, preventing corruption from datarot or hard drive failures on one system.
When setting up backups in several tiers - there are some risks involved that goes for all systems, regardless of ZFS or not. The reason I stress this that a second system lacking freenas standard components/quality may introduce errors that not only affects single files, but may in worst case scenario (though not that far away) corrupt the entire pool. all files.
The difference between freenas and other less advanced systems is that a flawed 2nd tier system, with a 'ez-mode setup sync setting for backups' can easily send all systems down the drain. This is why I'm stressing the importance of respecting the entire chain of events and systems.

There are ways to prevent above scenarios. Without taking time and caution, I'd consider 2nd level backups on USB drives preferred over a 'old box'.
Key word: managing risks.

 

[Matt Tyree]

Interesting. Well, I'm definitely not going to have the money to build two glorious FreeNAS boxes. I was going to move this one over to my brother's house for the offsite backup. Right now, he just has two USB drives connected to his PC that I write to. Pretty much exactly what I have here prior to this "sub-par" FreeNAS box. I wanted to get the burden off his machine and install this FreeNAS box at his house for the offsite backup. Should I just put Windows on this box and do it without FreeNAS at his house? I was thinking FreeNAS in any form was better than just a plain Windows share.

 

[depasseg]

i5 processor with 8GB of RAM

I've got an old box serving as my tertiary backup box. It has 8GB RAM and 6x6TB drives in RAID Z1. That's all it does and it works fine as a ZFS replication target.

My bigger concern, is that it's unlikely the RAM you are talking about is ECC. So if your i5 and motherboard could support ECC RAM, then that's what I would suggest upgrading to (assuming it's not already).

 

[Matt Tyree]

My bigger concern, is that it's unlikely the RAM you are talking about is ECC.

Correct. As far as I know, and have read, no i5s support ECC. This is an old desktop machine.

 

[Robert Trevellyan]

To new people looking around for info on FreeNAS (ie, me), they get the indication using an old PC is no problem at all.

Yes, but not in these forums. As with anything, you have to decide for yourself which source has more credibility.

It sounds like ZFS is more prone to corrupting data than other file systems.

This is not correct. In these forums, you're among people who care more about your data than your wallet or your feelings. These people also look to ZFS for a filesystem that will do a better job of protecting their data than any other. Good hardware will support that goal, regardless of the filesystem. Weak hardware will not.

 

[Matt Tyree]

Yeah, I get that. And I very much value your opinions whether you care about my feelings or not. ;-)
I just don't understand why the data is safer on an external USB drive on Windows than on FreeNAS just because the hardware is desktop grade. So, if Windows were running on that same hardware with a couple USB drives on it, the data would be safer? You can understand why I would come to the conclusion that ZFS is more prone to errors. I mean, that's pretty much what I was told on these forums. At the very least, ZFS is far more picky than other file systems, apparently.

At any rate. I have ordered all the parts for the full-blown NAS, so it won't be an issue after next week. Although I'll continue to run this box as a secondary off-site NAS. It'll have data copied to it, but never the other direction. I'll take the risk.
I would still like to know if it's more advisable to run Windows with some shares on this box, though.

 

[nojohnny101]

I've got an old box serving as my tertiary backup box. It has 8GB RAM and 6x6TB drives in RAID Z1. That's all it does and it works fine as a ZFS replication target.

This is my rationale as well and I've taken the same approach as @depasseg
See sig.

I just don't understand why the data is safer on an external USB drive on Windows than on FreeNAS just because the hardware is desktop grade. So, if Windows were running on that same hardware with a couple USB drives on it, the data would be safer? You can understand why I would come to the conclusion that ZFS is more prone to errors. I mean, that's pretty much what I was told on these forums. At the very least, ZFS is far more picky than other file systems, apparently.

I look at what you're talking about from a different perspective. The reason your though process doesn't make sense to me is that you are trying to compare two different things, it really isn't a comparison you should even be making.
An analogy I would use is that the windows compute with USB hard drives you referenced is like a mass produced mid-sized moderately priced sedan. Storing your data in FreeNAS on drives is like a custom made, solidly built SUV. Sure your data will probably be fine in the mid-sized sedan built with average components and a much lower cost for ownership. However, if you properly plan the configuration of your SUV that is built from high-quality parts but requires a larger up-front investment, but you're data will in almost certainly be "safer". The last point in this analogy is, in both cases, the most important component is the driver :)

Best analogy I could come up with, hopefully it makes sense?

 

[Dice]

Best analogy I could come up with, hopefully it makes sense?

the key point - you think you bought a terrain capable hardcore 4x4 SUV, but instead ends up with a lifted sedan... Might look somewhat "offroady" but has no business going out on trails.
=
Getting a proper FreeNAS capable setup, or setting up FreeNAS on a crapbox.

 

[Arwen]

...
It sounds like ZFS is more prone to corrupting data than other file systems. Since it absolutely must have server-grade parts or it will apparently corrupt the data. If it's that volatile, I'm not sure I want to use it at all. The data is safer on my external USB drives.

Here let me fix that for you, (in my opinion);

...
It sounds like ZFS is more prone to detecting corrupt data than any other file systems. Since it absolutely must have server-grade parts or the server may corrupt the data independant of ZFS. If it's that good at detecting corruption, I'm not sure I want to use it with crappy hardware. The data is safe on my external USB drives also using ZFS to allow detection of corruption.

In all seriousness, we like ZFS because it will tell us about every bad bit. And if redundancy is available, if it
was able to fix the problem. Something no other file system or RAID will do, (except perhaps Linux' BTRFS).

For example, until FreeNAS 9.3, many people used un-mirrored UFS boot drives to USB flash. Then 9.3 came
out with ZFS for boot drives, and optional mirroring. We had more than a few people complain about their USB
drives were dying. My personal thought was the drives were of poor quality to begin with, but UFS could not
detect any problems.