4 ms·
I have one as well for 4 yrs now. I like how you get the 4 enclosures for hdds and an internal usb slot for a thumb drive to put the OS on... And even a fifth i
by 411111111111111 6y ago
I have one as well for 4 yrs now. I like how you get the 4 enclosures for hdds and an internal usb slot for a thumb drive to put the OS on... And even a fifth internal sata slot you can use to add ssd cache to the raid (as long as you use Software RAID with lvm). There is even a second DDR3 non-registered ECC RAM slot so you can get up to 16gb memory.
... But quiet is not how I'd call it. My Synology NAS (718+) is not only more powerful but also requires significantly less cooling.
I just hate that I need two ssd's (read&write separately) and need to use the hdd enclosures, so it reduces the potential raid size to an awkward/uneven number: 5... I wouldn't buy the NAS again because of that.
- robotmay 6y agoI'd love to see a 6 bay HP MicroServer. I too have a Gen8 and my only real complaints are: max 16GB of RAM, and only 4 drive bays which sorta limits you to RAID10 as a best compromise. In the newest model they've rotated the bays to be horizontal and made it half the height; but I'd love to see that same idea at the original height with a few more bays. It'd be a cracking little machine that way. My MicroServer has the E3 Xeon (which was a pain to find in the UK, had to buy the chip off eBay in the end) and for a home server it's pretty stellar. I do want something more powerful for a headless workstation though.
- 411111111111111 6y agoYou probably want to use raid10 anyway though. Parity raids are dangerous if you don't have a full backup of all data, as recovery stresses all disks, increasing the likelihood of a second and consequently full failure significantly.
- robotmay 6y agoI do keep a full off-site backup of all the important stuff at least :) Yeah RAID10 is a bit of an oddity. I definitely think it's the way to go on 4 disk setups, as it has the same failure level as a RAID5 but with significantly faster resilver times (i.e. both can lose any 1 disk and recover). RAID10 could theoretically lose 2 disks and recover so long as they're not in the same mirror pair. After that it starts to feel like a bit more of a gamble though as you _could_ lose all disks in a single mirror on larger arrays. Say with 12 disks and a RAID7 setup (I'm converting from ZFS setups which is what I know :D) compared to RAID10; you could in theory tolerate notably more disk failures (50%) in RAID10, but you could also take 2 failures in the same mirror and immediately lose data. But yeah the resilver times are horrible even when just mirroring two drives on my server, so I'm definitely wary of the stress resilvering a RAID5-7 array will put on the disks. I think my ideal setup would be two servers with RAID10 arrays mirroring each other. Or I suppose with ZFS you could create two RAID10 arrays in the same machine and then make them a mirrored pair. Which would be entertaining, but I have no idea what RAID number that converts into!
- znpy 6y agoNot sure what CPU you had in your microserver, but mine has a Xeon CPU, which is fast enough for nas-like workloads.
- wolfgang42 6y agoAt least on my Gen8, most of the noise comes from the 1U-size power supply. I swapped that out for a PicoPSU with an external solid-state power brick and now you can’t hear it at all unless you put your ear right up next to it. (Well, the power brick that comes with the kit has a high-pitched coil whine that you can hear when it’s quiet, but it’s just an ordinary 12v supply so you can replace it with a better one if that’s a problem.)