4 ms·

Looks like $700 USD entry price? Might be worth it but seems overkill for a lot of people. I will read those docs however to see about building my own, thanks f

Looks like $700 USD entry price? Might be worth it but seems overkill for a lot of people. I will read those docs however to see about building my own, thanks for the tip

willis936 5y ago
Used workstations (hpe proliant, dell poweredge tower, etc.) on ebay plus 4x 4 TB hard drives clocks in around $700 too. Couple it with something like B2 or S3 replication and your data is safe and secure. It ain't cheap, but you're buying reliability and privacy.
- judge2020 5y ago
  It doesn't buy locational redundancy, though; with that setup a fire is sure to take your drives with it unless you get an expensive fireproof NAS. 1tb via Google One or even Google Cloud is sure to be at least 5 times cheaper a year than getting 1tb hard drives in 2 extra continents.
  - willis936 5y ago
    How does "B2 or S3 replication" not solve this? Using google guarantees your files are not private.
    - judge2020 5y ago
      I'm not saying it doesn't, i'm saying it's cheaper. S3 or Google Cloud storage is going to be so much more expensive in this scenario. B2 is the same as Google One at $10/mo for 2TB, which doesn't include data re-downloading ($20 to redownload the full 2tb). The only benefit you get with B2 is that you only pay for what you use. And I would only recommend consumer cloud storage in an encrypted fashion - cryptomator or rclone are great.
      - willis936 5y ago
        >I'm not saying it doesn't, i'm saying it's cheaper. So I read this wrong? >It doesn't buy locational redundancy, though; with that setup a fire is sure to take your drives with it unless you get an expensive fireproof NAS. Also, B2's pricing is competitive with google and dropbox for 2 TB and under (within 50%). I haven't priced their larger tiers, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't also competitive. I'd rather have my files sit on an encrypted volume that is easily accessible to me than try to live around integrating obscure higher level encryption schemes. It's a larger attack surface and takes integration with other software off the table.
magicalhippo 5y ago
Or if you got your old desktop computer, that'll do too. I'm on my third iteration of retired-desktop-pc NAS, didn't buy anything except a couple of 10gbe nics on ebay.
- awiesenhofer 5y ago
  Do you actually saturate the 10gbits via spinning disks or is it more for the reduced latency?
  - magicalhippo 5y ago
    Well ZFS is fairly good at caching, so while I might not be able to saturate the 10gbit/s from the disks directly all the time, it's still a noticeable jump up from "merely" 1gbit/s. So depending on which disks is hit, I can get 300-500MB/s for uncached data. However when copying to the NAS, it can saturate as long as there's room in the RAM cache. In sum it was a quite worthwhile jump in performance given the investment of about $30 or so, even if it's "only" 3x in some cases.

Looks like $700 USD entry price? Might be worth it but seems overkill for a lot of people. I will read those docs however to see about building my own, thanks for the tip

willis936 5y ago

Used workstations (hpe proliant, dell poweredge tower, etc.) on ebay plus 4x 4 TB hard drives clocks in around $700 too. Couple it with something like B2 or S3 replication and your data is safe and secure. It ain't cheap, but you're buying reliability and privacy.

judge2020 5y ago
It doesn't buy locational redundancy, though; with that setup a fire is sure to take your drives with it unless you get an expensive fireproof NAS. 1tb via Google One or even Google Cloud is sure to be at least 5 times cheaper a year than getting 1tb hard drives in 2 extra continents.
- willis936 5y ago
  How does "B2 or S3 replication" not solve this? Using google guarantees your files are not private.
  - judge2020 5y ago
    I'm not saying it doesn't, i'm saying it's cheaper. S3 or Google Cloud storage is going to be so much more expensive in this scenario. B2 is the same as Google One at $10/mo for 2TB, which doesn't include data re-downloading ($20 to redownload the full 2tb). The only benefit you get with B2 is that you only pay for what you use. And I would only recommend consumer cloud storage in an encrypted fashion - cryptomator or rclone are great.
    - willis936 5y ago
      >I'm not saying it doesn't, i'm saying it's cheaper. So I read this wrong? >It doesn't buy locational redundancy, though; with that setup a fire is sure to take your drives with it unless you get an expensive fireproof NAS. Also, B2's pricing is competitive with google and dropbox for 2 TB and under (within 50%). I haven't priced their larger tiers, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't also competitive. I'd rather have my files sit on an encrypted volume that is easily accessible to me than try to live around integrating obscure higher level encryption schemes. It's a larger attack surface and takes integration with other software off the table.

magicalhippo 5y ago

Or if you got your old desktop computer, that'll do too. I'm on my third iteration of retired-desktop-pc NAS, didn't buy anything except a couple of 10gbe nics on ebay.

awiesenhofer 5y ago
Do you actually saturate the 10gbits via spinning disks or is it more for the reduced latency?
- magicalhippo 5y ago
  Well ZFS is fairly good at caching, so while I might not be able to saturate the 10gbit/s from the disks directly all the time, it's still a noticeable jump up from "merely" 1gbit/s. So depending on which disks is hit, I can get 300-500MB/s for uncached data. However when copying to the NAS, it can saturate as long as there's room in the RAM cache. In sum it was a quite worthwhile jump in performance given the investment of about $30 or so, even if it's "only" 3x in some cases.