Why are people still so hung up on being able to have massive amounts of local storage? These days, it's feasible to have a relatively inexpensive home server box on your LAN. Home servers are more than just an alternative, they're an improvement. It's simply a better idea, for many reasons, including:
1. Stability. Instead of relying on a Windows install to hold up and allow you to access files, you can install whatever Linux distro you want on your home server, to manage your files. You can still play all the Windows games you want, and still have all your files stored on an ext4 filesystem.
2. Compatibility. Windows only likes to play nice with other Windows machines. A Linux (or even a FreeNAS, really) install plays nice with just about everything.
3. You can turn off your desktop PC. You don't have to depend on your desktop PC to be on in order to access your files anymore, nor do you have to leave your desktop PC on to seed torrents. Instead, you can have a low-wattage Linux-based server handling those things (and much more, at your discretion) for you.
4. It opens up a whole slew of new computing options for you. It doesn't matter whether you're using an all-in-one, a nettop, or a tablet. You still have access to the same amount of storage capacity when you're at home.
5. Noise. You'll naturally experience drastically less hard drive and fan noise when all of your hard drives are in a closet down the hall.
6. Scalability. When you fill the six SATA ports in your desktop, you either shell out for an expensive and/or dodgy SATA card, or buy unsightly external drives, or you're done expanding. When you fill the six SATA ports in your home server, you simply set up a second server box and stack it on top of the first one.
Home servers are the elegant file storage solution of the 21st century. Rest in peace, local storage.
Pic related: It's the Fractal Node 304, a Mini-ITX case that can hold six 3.5" drives. ~24 TB, the size of a large toaster.
Also, if I wanted to make a beefy computer to stream steam games from, would it be worth it to have a separate server for storage and another one for gaming, or should I put them all in one box?
Hi you're retarded.
Gigabyte ethernet has shit random access, not all files are just movies that can be access sequentially.
Stability and compatibility are problems that just doesn't exist when the disks are on the same system.
Why would I need to access my files anywhere when I just sit at my battlestation when I reach home?
Hard drive noise is overrated in a good case.
Why would I need more than six drives, and is a second server box cheaper than a sata card?
>Gigabyte ethernet has shit random access, not all files are just movies that can be access sequentially.
These files are usually not big in size. You can store these on your normal PC and back them up on server.
just today mornning I had thread about case for my upcoming NAS / Torrent server
I found out about embeded intel CPUS mobos
quad core pentium
No point running a NAS as I'm more or less constantly rendering something, either for myself or for others. Currently, it's a better way of turning electricity into cash than mining.
I have a Synology NAS next to my router/modem/etc setup. It's nice to have. I can stuff all my movies on it and access them anywhere in the world, whether I'm on my phone, tablet, laptop or PC.
I think tomorrow I'm going to start using it as a sync tool for my laptop and PC, both syncing up with the same files so I have all my documents, pictures and music wherever I take my laptop, even offline and if I don't have my laptop on me, I can still access all my files anywhere.
>any file transfer protocol usable from the shell is "ftp"
Ironically enough, FTP and SFTP are the best way to get stuff off a fileserver to Android, via Ghost Commander.
You can ftp from explorer and it looks identical to accessing any other folder.
Alternatively you have smb etc.
It's okay, I'll shove it somewhere the noise won't bother me.
What do you mean caddies? I looked online and it seems there's 2.5" and 3.5" hot swap trays. How bad are these on power?
>How bad are these on power?
A nightmare. This would be great for VMs, webserver, etc, but total overkill for a fileserver.
That said, $100 is a total steal, especially if it comes fully loaded, so get it anyways
So when you asked about the caddies the only difference is 2.5" and 3.5" drives, right?
It's not fully loaded, it's missing drives, but it's got 16GB of ram and 2x 2GHz Xeon quads.
I have a couple of the WD Enterprise drives I could hook into it. They're only 7200rpm, is that going to be a problem? I'm pretty new to servers at all, but I've been wanting something for a while. I'd use it for a web server, maybe setup a VPN and some game servers for me and my friends.
Thanks for your polite advising!
>So when you asked about the caddies the only difference is 2.5" and 3.5" drives, right?
yeah, pretty much. That will be a sweet server. I have an almost equivalent IBM server (x3550 M2) If you need a good OS, Slackware is great on mine
holy shit this is the worst infographic I have ever seen
Why not just take it to the next level and pay peanuts for cloud storage at a data center.
You cannot beat the uptime of a data center solution. The only excuse for not doing this is being a NEET who never leaves home. Of course this being /g/ you guys never even crawl out of mom's basement. Which explains your desire to come up with convoluted justifications involving Jews and reptoids being behind cloud solutions.
pic related, you're the mouse, and the glue trap is the baggage of being a neckbeard NEET stuck in the past
Mine will be for VMs once I finish setup (I've been really lazy lately) It's really no harder than setting up a computer, just set up SSH and then after that you can do everything remotely. Gotta know a little CLI though
Neat, I can manage my way around a CLI. I can always Google what I don't know, right?
In case I can't find my RE4s, do you think WD Red 7200RPM drives would be suitable for a home server?
OP, I have had such a setup for the past year and a half. In a 304 too. Really is an outstanding setup.
I will note though, that boxes like the q08 (as well as the similar types that lack the optical bay) are small and can hold even more drives
I run a file and plex server off a 5 year old netbook, it literally costs nothing
1) install debian with a lightweight desktop environment like XFCE
2) apt-get install samba
3) configure samba
5) home server
Reds or seagate NAS drives are best, they have low power draw and are good for long runs
I'm gonna get an atom NAS box, so I plan on getting Seagate NAS (1 watt less power per drive). My big server has 4x73GB 10K SAS drives which will hopefully fit all my VMs
I have a LAN server with lotsa storage, but It's nice to have lots of space for programs 2doe.
my job is providing me with a NAS for home use. my budget is roughly $500.
I'm not allowed to purchase a HTPC, has to be a true NAS due to purchase restrictions.
I'm considering the DS 412+ or the TP-469L
anyone have experience with either?
>more competent than me
I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. Are you personally responsible for the uptime of your home ISP connection? Explain how you're able to make that beat the redundancy and reliability of Amazon S3 or Rackspace. You've made a revolutionary discovery that has rendered a huge industry obsolete.
The point of a home server isn't to serve to the world. It's to serve to your home. It's a centralized repository of all your files so that you don't have to muck about with having them all on separate machines. Instead, any and all machines you own all have access to them.