[mrstarface]

I am currently building a NAS to serve files to my XBMC clients at home (1 NUC and 2 Pi's).

Been reading about which OS to use and am thoroughly confused as to which option would suit me best.

My NAS will be running 8 drives containing media only and I am not concerned about running raid or backing anything up I just want a front end that is reasonably easy to use/configure and can serve the files quickly to several different clients. I would also like the OS to run off a USB stick if possible to avoid buying another drive and be able to run sabnzb and sick beard.

Would something like UnRAID be best or maybe Windows Home Server?

Any advice appreciated

[buzzqw]

i am using Debian

or just any fully driven desktop linux (ubuntu server + xfce, centos..)

easy to setup (samba and nfs) , solid, reliable and secure.

i don't use raid, just some simple bash script to make copy (rsync) on backup disks

BHH

[Dougie Fresh]

WHS can't be run off a thumb drive.

Ubuntu + Amahi
FreeNAS

[lrusak]

Not going to lie, I don't understand why you want to have 8 seperate disks that aren't striped together. That just sounds like a headache.

Just use raid5 so you have one redundant disk and all the disks will be striped at least.

Use unraid if all you disks are different size and media is still on them.

I personally use FreeNAS, it really is the best thing going, but you will have to use clean disks that are the same size.

[MrCrispy]

Raid is a pain to setup and dangerous, its a server tech that has no place at home. I'd recommend unRaid any day over Raid.

[two515ty]

Raid is a pain to setup and dangerous, its a server tech that has no place at home. I'd recommend unRaid any day over Raid.

I'm curious, what is the reasoning behind your statements? What makes RAID "dangerous," and why shouldn't people use it in their homes?

I wouldn't go with unRAID for this situation. The reason I don't recommend unRAID is the cost. You have to pay $70 for the Plus license for only up to 5 data disks and $120 for (ironically) the "Pro" license (does that belong in people's homes?) to get more than 5 data disks.

The OP even said he doesn't care about backups or parity and all that, so unRAID would actually be a poor choice in my opinion. He/she would have to buy the Pro license for $120 just to be able to use all 8 disks. That $120 can be used to purchase more disks or better hardware, instead of an expensive software license that's tied to your USB drive. Better hope your USB drive doesn't ever die!

MrStarFace, how big are the disks you're using? I know you said you don't care about backups or RAID and all that, but I'd highly recommend you to use RAID6 (known as RAID-Z2 if you go with FreeNAS) so that you can have a 2 drive failure tolerance. If you keep each disk as separate volumes, you won't have any protection against data loss, and you'll have to map/mount up to 8 difference volumes on each client.

Personally, I use FreeNAS. Setting up RAID through the GUI is as simple as can be and there isn't any "danger" involved if you have a basic understanding of what you're doing. Even if you decide not to use any kind of RAID, you can still setup each disk as a separate volume, or merge multiple disks into one or more volumes. Once you have your volumes up and running, you can easily install sickbeard, sabnzbd, Plex, couchpotato, and many other useful plugins from within the FreeNAS GUI.

[lrusak]

Raid is a pain to setup and dangerous, its a server tech that has no place at home. I'd recommend unRaid any day over Raid.

What makes you think unRAID isn't raid?

unRAID basically uses raid5. unRAID has single parity, which only allows for the rebuild of a single failed drive.
Also, unRAID to my knowledge uses raiserFS, which is meh in my opinion. ZFS and BTRFS are much better file systems

Raid is important in any setup that uses more than 1 disk. If you care about data, you should be using some form of raid.

Disclaimer: Raid should not be considered a "backup" method. Seperate backups should still be made/considered with the use of raid.

[noggin]

The key thing about unRAID which makes it more desirable to many of us than most conventional RAID solutions is that the disks remain entirely readable outside of the array. This isn't always the case with other RAID solutions.

[mrstarface]

I have 8 2TB disks and I can always re-rip my media if one drive blows so aren't too concerned. I am going to slowly move them to 4TB as I can afford though so Freenas may not be an option.

Thanks for all the comments so far am looking at all the suggestions!

[MrCrispy]

Most important rule for any home storage solution - data must be stored in native format, so disks are readable in event of emergency.

Products that do this: unRaid, FlexRaid, snapraid, Amahi, WHS Drive Extender (pre 2011)
Products that don't: any RAID using striping (hw or sw), Storage Spaces, zfs, WHS 2011 and above, any proprietary format (Qnap, Synology)

As for RAID, it was designed for 'high availability', data safety and backup is a secondary concern. There are hundreds of articles on the raid write hole. It has too many limitations (controllers, disk sizes, time to restore). Its hard to think of a technology *more* unsuitable and dangerous than RAID striping. 99% of data in a home media server is static, you don't need realtime protection. What you need is parity, and a way to reconstruct. And that's exactly what parity based software like unRaid/FlexRaid does, you can even keep parity disks offline for safety.

If unRaid is too expensive, use Amahi. And newer unRaid does use btrfs.

[lrusak]

Most important rule for any home storage solution - data must be stored in native format, so disks are readable in event of emergency.

May I ask why you think this?

[noggin]

Most important rule for any home storage solution - data must be stored in native format, so disks are readable in event of emergency.

May I ask why you think this?

I think it is because most of us don't have full backups on hard drive, and instead have invested lots of time (but not money) in ripping our CDs, DVDs and Blu-rays to our media servers. The thought of a RAID failure that can't be corrected meaning we lose everything is quite an issue for us. Having guaranteed access to the drives in our array even if we have a multiple drive failure that can't be 100% recovered from the unRAID parity solution is reassuring.

(I do have a full off-site backup of my CD collection - which was ripped losslessly and is less than 1TB. However my 14TB (in 2TB drives) of DVDs and Blu-rays is only in the unRAID array. If I lost two drives simultaneously I'd only lose 2 or 4TB (depending on whether I lost a parity and a data drive or two data drives) of content that I'd have to re-rip, not the full 14TB...

Many RAID solutions fail totally once you go over the point at which they can reconstruct themselves. Some are also tied totally to the hardware RAID controller - so if that fails you have to replace it with one of the same type (which can be difficult if it is obsolete). I've migrated my unRAID hardware twice now - but was just able to transplant the drives.

[MrCrispy]

Most important rule for any home storage solution - data must be stored in native format, so disks are readable in event of emergency.

May I ask why you think this?

IMO safety and availability of data is the single most important criteria. The dangers of a RAID reconstruction are too high, and the costs of reripping all your media are also high. Plus you don't lose anything with a parity based solution that keeps data in native format. In fact I'd like to hear of a single advantage of using RAID. I can't think of one.

[two515ty]

The key thing about unRAID which makes it more desirable to many of us than most conventional RAID solutions is that the disks remain entirely readable outside of the array. This isn't always the case with other RAID solutions.

This might normally be a great advantage, but it seems the OP has stated that he's not concerned about backups or disk failure, and appears to be willing to re-rip media if a drive failure occurs. With that in mind, I don't think the extra $120 for an unRAID license is worth it.

I have 8 2TB disks and I can always re-rip my media if one drive blows so aren't too concerned. I am going to slowly move them to 4TB as I can afford though so Freenas may not be an option.

Thanks for all the comments so far am looking at all the suggestions!

You could still just as easily use FreeNAS, but you can just set up your disks as separate volumes. You don't have to use RAID-Z or RAID-Z2 if you don't want to. Right now, I'm only running 2 x 3 TB drives in a single striped volume (RAID-0), but I have another separate 1 TB disk that I can run as a standalone volume by itself. The reason I insist on FreeNAS is because it will be the cheapest and most straightforward option to set up IMO. You could also run simple other distros such as Ubuntu, Arch Linux, or Debian, but it won't be quite as simple as FreeNAS IMO.

IMO safety and availability of data is the single most important criteria. The dangers of a RAID reconstruction are too high, and the costs of reripping all your media are also high. Plus you don't lose anything with a parity based solution that keeps data in native format. In fact I'd like to hear of a single advantage of using RAID. I can't think of one.

What are the dangers of a RAID reconstruction? I'm curious myself because I'm planning on migrating to a RAID-Z2 (RAID6) system in the future, but I've never really heard about RAID reconstruction being dangerous.

[Stereodude]

IMO safety and availability of data is the single most important criteria. The dangers of a RAID reconstruction are too high, and the costs of reripping all your media are also high. Plus you don't lose anything with a parity based solution that keeps data in native format. In fact I'd like to hear of a single advantage of using RAID. I can't think of one.

Uh, data availability / up time. Your data can survive a HD failure. Improved performance of accessing the data.

Regardless of all that, RAID is not a substitute for a backup. IMHO, not having a backup is irresponsible computing.