zfs discuss - Jun 2006 - recommended hardware for a zfs/nfs NAS?

I was wondering if anyone could recommend hardware
forr a ZFS-based NAS for home use.

The ''zfs on 32-bit'' thread has scared me of a mini-itx fanless
setup, so I''m looking at sparc or opteron. Ideally it would:

a) run quiet (blade 100/150 is ok, x4100 ain''t :) )
b) take advantage of cheap disks
   ( ide/sata, unless scsi suddenly got affordable)
c) come in around the 300-400 pounds mark

Don''t need massive storage, it just needs to be reliable and reasonably
fast - I was thinking of maybe a 2-way 100Gb mirror set.

Graphics are a complete non-issue.
It only needs to saturate 100mbit (I''m not planning to use it for
anything else, so CPU isn''t important).

Any used sun systems fit the bill, or should I be thinking of rolling
my own opteron? Thanks!

-- 
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
http://number9.hellooperator.net/

> I was wondering if anyone could recommend hardware
> forr a ZFS-based NAS for home use.
> 
> setup, so I''m looking at sparc or opteron. Ideally it
> would:
> 
> a) run quiet (blade 100/150 is ok, x4100 ain''t :) )
Not much space in a Blade 100/150 for multiple disks, but it is quiet and cheap.
For NAS use, I''d think RAID would be ideal...RAID in a Blade 100/150
isn''t ideal.
> b) take advantage of cheap disks
>    ( ide/sata, unless scsi suddenly got affordable)
> come in around the 300-400 pounds mark
> 
Ummm...
> Don''t need massive storage, it just needs to be
> reliable and reasonably
Reliable = redundant
Redundant = multiple disks
> fast - I was thinking of maybe a 2-way 100Gb mirror
> set.
Fast = $ (typically)
"Speed costs money.  How fast do you want to go?"  8)
> Graphics are a complete non-issue.
> It only needs to saturate 100mbit (I''m not planning
Saturating 100Mbit with a 64-bit CPU and redundant disks for $300-400 Pounds may
be tough.
> to use it for
> anything else, so CPU isn''t important).
> 
True, but ZFS compression=on works very well, and potentially  on-disk
encryption support [down the road] with compression may change your mind.
> Any used sun systems fit the bill, or should I be
> thinking of rolling
> my own opteron? Thanks!
Roll your own with Opteron, new disks, etc.?  ...not feasible in that price
range, IMHO.

Depending on what your current workstation is, I just might suggest adding disks
there and beef it up.

Nice NAS:
A nice new Ultra 20 is inexpensive, quiet, and makes a good workstation. 
I''d suggest beefing up your existing workstation or replacing it with a
U20 with two fast SATA disks & ZFS mirrors or stripes.

Cheap NAS:
The last option I suggest is a Blade 100/150 with only one IDE drive - you could
zip tie another in the box carefully I suppose - but this isn''t the
most reliable place to save your personal data.
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

>Saturating 100Mbit with a 64-bit CPU and redundant disks for $300-400 Pounds
may be tough.
Anything in the market can saturate 100Mbit easily; even with a single
cheap IDE disk.  The disks are generally a factor 5-10 faster than the
100Mbit network.

Casper

Dick Davies wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone could recommend hardware
> forr a ZFS-based NAS for home use.
>
> The ''zfs on 32-bit'' thread has scared me of a mini-itx
fanless
> setup, so I''m looking at sparc or opteron. Ideally it would:
>
> a) run quiet (blade 100/150 is ok, x4100 ain''t :) )
> b) take advantage of cheap disks
>   ( ide/sata, unless scsi suddenly got affordable)
> c) come in around the 300-400 pounds mark
>
> Don''t need massive storage, it just needs to be reliable and
reasonably
> fast - I was thinking of maybe a 2-way 100Gb mirror set.
>
> Graphics are a complete non-issue.
> It only needs to saturate 100mbit (I''m not planning to use it for
> anything else, so CPU isn''t important).
>
> Any used sun systems fit the bill, or should I be thinking of rolling
> my own opteron? Thanks!
>
If it''s just going to be a NAS,  look for a AMD Sempron or Intel
Celeron
D (with 64-bit extension, so you''ll need the LGA775 socket version) 
based motherboard with 4 SATA ports on-board - check the OpenSolaris 
folks for drivers. You should be able to get 4 mid-sized  SATA drives 
(say in the 160GB range), and either RAID-Z or stripe/mirror them. That 
will be more than enough to keep a 100Mbit interface fully occupied, 
both reading and writing.

Example:

Socket 753 motherboard w/ 4 SATA ports ( Biostar NF4 4X-A7)   $60
Sempron 2600+   $75
1GB RAM            $50
mid-tower case       $50
(4) 80GB SATA drives   4 @ $50 each
CD-ROM            $20

Total:      $455


-Erik

> 
> 
> >Saturating 100Mbit with a 64-bit CPU and redundant
> disks for $300-400 Pounds may be tough.
> 
> Anything in the market can saturate 100Mbit easily;
> even with a single
> cheap IDE disk.  The disks are generally a factor
> 5-10 faster than the
> 100Mbit network.
> 
> Casper
> 
Indeed, I stand corrected - must have been thinking 1000Mbit
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

Dick Davies wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone could recommend hardware
> forr a ZFS-based NAS for home use.
> 
> The ''zfs on 32-bit'' thread has scared me of a mini-itx
fanless
> setup, so I''m looking at sparc or opteron. Ideally it would:
I think the issue with ZFS on 32-bit is revolving around the
efficient use of memory.  If you have lots of memory, ZFS won''t
use it.  By contrast, in 64-bit systems, when you have lots of
memory, ZFS will use it.  In either case, if you only have a
little bit of memory, ZFS may dominate.  [my simplification, I''ll
expect correction from the ZFS team, if I''m wrong :-)]
> a) run quiet (blade 100/150 is ok, x4100 ain''t :) )
> b) take advantage of cheap disks
>   ( ide/sata, unless scsi suddenly got affordable)
> c) come in around the 300-400 pounds mark
I don''t think you will have much memory at that price.  I''d go
for
2 GBytes, no matter what processor you get.  512 MBytes is too little
(I''ve got one of those here on the Ranch-net... for archive purposes
only)
  -- richard

>I think the issue with ZFS on 32-bit is revolving around the
>efficient use of memory.  If you have lots of memory, ZFS won''t
>use it.  By contrast, in 64-bit systems, when you have lots of
>memory, ZFS will use it.  In either case, if you only have a
>little bit of memory, ZFS may dominate.  [my simplification, I''ll
>expect correction from the ZFS team, if I''m wrong :-)]

The problem is not so much processor physical memory but it''s
processor virtual memory; and virtual memory is limited by the
amount above the address space on a 32 bit kernel.

A 64 bit system with 512MB of memory does much better than a 32 bit system
in the same situation.

Lowering kernelbase (eeprom kernelbase=0x.....) will help some.

(The default kernel base gives less than 1GB of virtual space)

Casper