So I'm building a retarded xbox hueg storage server for

>>60971350
no its fine for what you are trying to do. i suggest you use SFTP and SSH instead of FTP

>>60971350
Why so much ram if it's just for storage?

>>60971350
EPYC NDA lifts tomorrow.
It may be worth checking it out;
https://videocardz.com/70266/amd-epyc-7000-series-specs-and-performance-leaked

>>60971366
I'd suggest glftpd with ssl support. nothing beats the ascii scripts with top leecher and so on

>>60971379
Ive heard ZFS memory requirements are surprisingly high and memory is cheap compared to the +1000 ive already spent on the case and the raid card

>>60971379
Not OP, but ZFS needs ~1GB Ram/TB of storage

>>60971403
>>60971405
Thanks. I thought maybe it was to buffer the FTP uploads or something.

>>60971398
>>60971366
Good input actually I will look into it. I agree basic FTP would not be a clever idea
>>60971391
oh mad. well i would consider it but i really want to go with a supermicro board and who knows how long they will take to make a compatible board (if ever)
theres no way im trusting my data with prosumer motherboards

>>60971405
well if i got 96TB of storage ill probably need to change my board up to allow for that. 128GB of ram it is..
doesnt matter to me anyway the numbers give me a hardon and i can spend the cash

>>60971405
This is a meme you can fuck off m8

OJ are you sure, you want ZFS?

In your case increasing the array size would require you essentially to buy another 24 drives (not sure if there is a scenario you are good with less drives).
Also the CPU is so wasted on a NAS (except if you already have a proper server as virtualization host, and you shouldn't use ZFS in a VM, so).

Also I would go for a used E5v3 or something along the lines for a server.

>>60973042
wait i wasnt aware of this behaviour, is it a problem to later add larger drives piece by piece? would it be better to make multiple pools? i guess i should read up on ZFS more. having it as one big lot of storage is not essential to my needs

>>60973042
>>60973184
looking at the documentation isnt it just as easy as removing a disc from the pool and then adding the new one? am i missing something here?

>>60973184
Yep you'd need more pools then. It's because in an enterprise scenario you don't give a fuck about buying another 100 drives.

Smaller pools would help, obviously, but then you'd have multiple pools.

Was the knockout thing for me about FreeNAS. I'm really happy with my Hyper-V Host though. I just run all drives in a fileserver VM and use Drivebender on those. It also has CRC checking and dedublication does Windows Storage Pool thingy, which isn't actually half bad.

With specs like yours, you basically run so many VMs. (You need fast storage for VMs though, it's the only limiting factor in your case)

>>60973213
replacing is easy
adding more drives is the problem

>>60973042
"some of the caveats that come with ZFS:

Once a device is added to a VDEV, it cannot be removed.
You cannot shrink a zpool, only grow it."

ok so thanks for bringing this to my attention. seems like i will have to think a bit harder about the file system

>>60973226
only grow it, sure, but by adding the same amount of drives.

raid1 * 12

>>60971350
nice build
debian is fine/perfect
don't use unencrypted protocols
manage your certificates well
you may want to look into Owncloud (easy for normies to use + has mobile app)

>>60971350
ZFS L2ARC is a trap unless your dataset does not fit in memory.

File: AMD-Naples-Project-Olympus-OCP-Server-Motherboard[1].jpg (283KB, 800x559px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 800x559px

>>60971417
does this look like a prosumer motherboard to you?

>>60974555
no but it looks incredibly expensive and unnecessary for my needs

>>60974586
threadripper is the one getting prosumer motherboards, epyc is literally only enterprise grade stuff, but of course they will have 1S boards

>>60974615
ah i see

look into btrfs

>>60971350
In the long run you will save on going with larger drives initially. Less drives overall means less chance for failure, less drives replaced, and more room to expand when they do eventually drop in price.

>>60974896
It sucks having to pay almost 20 to 30 bucks more per terabyte though. I do see your point however
>>60974844
Looks good

>>60975252
You should be able to get 8TB's for around 30/TB. They'd be white label Enterprise HGST's but they're out there.

>>>60973213
>replacing is easy
>adding more drives is the problem
Not really. You just have to consider beforehand how you set up your vDevs. You don't need another 24 drives to increase space, in fact you can add as many as you want in whatever fashion. Just keep in mind, ZFS was designed to be planned put extensively beforehand.
And fuck these people who say it needs 1GiB/TiB of storage. Not only is that incorrect for deduplication, but ARC doesn't give a fuck about the memory it has available. If you have unused RAM, ZFS will use it. And if you need it for something, the ARC will free up memory accordingly.