[Tfug] NAS again

[Bexley Hall]

Hi John,

[Are you here?  Or, freezing your cookies off?  :> ]

On 2/11/2014 11:33 PM, John Gruenenfelder wrote:
> On February 1, 2014 11:50:52 AM MST, Bexley Hall<bexley401 at yahoo.com>  wrote:

>> The problem(s) that I've found with OTS "appliances" of this sort are:
>> - single spindle (means each spindle needs a network drop)
>> - current "with disk" offerings are too big (this is my "precious"
>>    archive -- i.e., nothing can get lost -- so I distrust few/big
>>    spindles)
>> - cost (some of the "no media" boxes are as expensive as a PC)
>
> A bit late to this party, but here's my two cents:

No problem -- but we're running low on *beer*... hopefully you
brought some along with you??

> Have you considered using broadband routers as your NAS access points?
> My router/switch running dd-wrt just died and as a result I have become
> far more full of dd-wrt related know-how than I was a few days ago.

Amazing how quickly we learn -- when we *have* to!  :>

> While my ex-router did not have them, it seems that most of the units
> these days have USB 2.0 or 3.0 ports on them, and, judging from the
> forums, many people are using them for NAS.

Yes.  I've also some other toys (e.g., NSLU2) that could be put to
that purpose, but (see below)...

> You'd still need an external enclosure, of course, but everything should
> be non-proprietary.  The variety of tools and capabilities you get on the
> router depends on the image you flash, but any unit with>= 8MB of flash
> has enough space for the NAS related stuff.

I have several avenues that I could have pursued with the "external USB
drive" option -- most (all?) of the NAS's that I have will support
one or two external USB drives in addition to whatever they support
internally.  I have a variety of different SBC's (e.g., X terminals)
that could similarly service external drives.

And, I've got a variety of external USB enclosures!

But, this is really a kludgy approach.  Each drive would have its
own wall wart -- plus the wall wart for <whatever> is driving them.
[I am already sorely stressed by the lack of "available products"
that will support multiple wall warts on a single power strip...
having to spend 3 WIDELY SPACED outlets to accommodate *one*
such "dual drive NAS" would just change the complexion of the
problem]

I've also had frustrating results with external drive enclosures.
Many suffer from the "128GB" (IDE) limitation.  I spent several hours
two nights ago trying to understand why two "*identical*" external
enclosures mated with identical *disks* gave different results:
one enclosure reported the internal 500GB drive as being 128GB while
the other reported the full 500GB.

[Obviously, the two enclosures were *not* identical at the "bit level".]

This was complicated by the fact that the two enclosures originally
included 200GB and 250GB drives, respectively (i.e., the 128GB limit
should NOT be a factor in the hardware!)

I.e., going the external enclosure route suggests buying several
KNOWN TO BE IDENTICAL (down to the firmware level) "new" enclosures
to start with.

On the flip side, the advantage this has is you can freely move
drives between NAS's, if needed.

> It sounds like you really don't need the wifi bits,

I don't use any wireless technologies "in band", here.  Easier
to be paranoid and safe than leave a "door open"

> but most of these projects tend to target units with wifi.  So, you
> might need to get one with wifi anyway and just disable it.  Also, even
> though a unit might have USB 3.0, we all know there's no way these CPUs
> can push that much data.

Correct.  I typically plan on ~120Mb/s from USB interfaces.
This is especially true if the USB i/f is hosted on a PCI card.

> Fortunately, I believe you said that SuperSpeeds weren't a big concern.

Correct.  I want a "fast sneakernet" that doesn't have the inconvenience
of actually physically transporting media.

> I used to run OpenWrt on my old WRT54G unit, but I had to switch to dd-wrt
> when I got the new one since OpenWrt did not yet support it.  Depending
> on your preferences/needs, you may find OpenWrt more to your liking.
> dd-wrt tends to take an all-in-one approach with big image files whereas
> OpenWrt uses a dpkg-alike package management system and online repository
> so you can easily choose what is installed.  You can customize dd-wrt,
> too, but you'll need to download their tools and build your own image.

I tend to build my own kernel + user-land on boxes.  It often lets
me catch configuration details and/or implementation bugs that
someone else might overlook when throwing together a "generic"
solution.

E.g., I find most documentation for "commands" has blatant errors
in regard to default operating conditions.  Things that are
easily verified when you parse the sources but seldom *empirically*
verified.

And, I also tend to opt for different configurations than the
"one-size-fits-all".

>> I was told to look at "Shuttles" (?) in that they are a very small
>> form factor and could probably accommodate 2-3 drives (haven't done
>> that research yet)
>
> I wholeheartedly recommend Shuttle PCs... but not for what you need
> here, I think.

To be clear, are you recommending *against* their use in this
application?  Or, just not recommending *for* their use?

> Shuttle offers a variety of bare-bones PCs in a tiny rectangular box.
> The form factor is non-standard, I believe, so you always get a
> case+motherboard.  I don't actually have any now, but in the past I
> used them for MythBoxes and they do great at this.

 From some casual research, it seems like fan noise is probably
the biggest woe -- small diameter fan, "big" processor (vs. what
I could get away with).

The EzGo PC I mentioned upthread has a similar problem (and,
from what I've seen about the "shoebox" Shuttles, the EzGo is
probably 1/6 the size!  So, cooling has to be a *real* challenge!)

> The case design is quite nice and you can pack a surprising amount
> into one.  A normal Shuttle case can hold up to two 3.5" drives
> (one has a faceplate available),

I'm guessing this to be the floppy/media card "slot" below the
"optical/5.25 drive"?

> one 5.25" drive, one low-profile expansion card, and one regular
> sized expansion card (likely a video card).

I don't think I would need any add-in cards -- unless the MB was the
wrong "flavor" (IDE vs. SATA) and I needed a disk controller.

> All of the Shuttle motherboards I have seen come with integrated
> video and numerous video outputs on the back, so a video card isn't
> strictly necessary.  If you fill one up all the way you get a very
> dense, but very portable, PC.

Yes, the photos I have seen suggest a *shoehorn* is supplied with
each purchase to help you assemble the thing!  :-/

> Cooling is achieved via a nifty heatpipe system that sits on the CPU
> and curves up to the back of the case where there is a big radiator
> and fan.

But the fan is a small diameter -- leading to higher RPM to move
a comparable amount of air past/through the heat exchanger.  Hence
the noise issue (?)

> It's a closed system, though, so no worries about liquids.

Yeah, I had a stereo ~30+ years ago that was liquid cooled.
It is apparently common on gaming computers, nowadays.

> My previous desktop was also a Shuttle XPC and served me quite well.
> I only moved away from Shuttle because I had too much stuff and needed
> a regular tower case for the added space.

That's the case with most of my workstations, here.  SCSI HBA's,
add-on USB ports, extra video cards, etc.

I'm going to try a Shuttle and see how it works.  If it falls short
as a NAS box (hard to imagine why?), I figure I could use it to
replace *this* (email/WWW) machine.

I'm also trying some 1U servers in the hope that I can hide them
*under* something else...  (I really need a short ~15-20U rack but
haven't made a point of hunting one down, yet)

> Also, the last few generations of video cards generate *so* much heat,
> I don't think a Shuttle case could adaquately cool it.

I suspect the power supplies in a machine that size couldn't
*power* it, let alone keep it cool!

Thx!
--don