Render Node/NAS In One Box

[jasonstewart]

Hey everyone,

I am looking to add some network storage to my home network and I have been wanting to add a cheap "$500 Render Node" (Thanks Dimitris for the idea). So looking at NAS units they just seem expensive for what they are and then I toyed with the idea of building a cheap little server instead. Then I thought why not combine the two.

 

I guess my question is how well would this work? I don't render that often so I guess it would be mostly NAS/HTPC and secondary to that would be a node while I am rendering. I realize that while it is rendering it would be slow to serve files and would be useless to stream off but I think I am ok with that. Just seems like such a waste to buy a Synology 4 bay NAS for $300 or whatever when the only thing it is good at is storing files. For a little more money I could have a multifunction machine.

 

Curious to hear everyones thoughts.

[numerobis]

I would separate them...

For a file server you want a reliable, low energy system that is almost always running (Pentium G, i3, i5, Xeon E3-1xxx). A rendernode will have a more energy consuming processor to make sense (i7, bigger Xeon E3/E5). And all those sensible HDDs in a hot rendernode case?

And like you said, when you are rendering the system will be less responsive.

 

Btw. i'm setting up my new server today with RAID 1 and SSD caching (2x Toshiba 3TB + Samsung 840 EVO) - i'm very curious to see the result...

Edited August 21, 2014 by numerobis

[jasonstewart]

Yea I understand that. Maybe NAS isn't the right term, think of it like HTPC w/attached storage. Its hard to justify spending $300 on a relatively speaking slow piece of hardware that maxes out at 4 drives.

 

Guess I might just have to bite the bullet and buy one. Planning on throwing some of the newer Seagate 4tb NAS drives in it in raid 1 for now, can expand later when I need more storage. It is hard to argue with the size of the Synology or similar NAS units, one would fit nicely in a little niche in my desk.

 

Thanks for the reply.

[RyderSK]

Its hard to justify spending $300 on a relatively speaking slow piece of hardware that maxes out at 4 drives.

 

 

Slow ? For what it does ? It's the best piece of HW in office. I had absolute zero problem with either Synology I have (212/414) and it's the next best thing I own. For first two years, I had only 2 HDDs there, that is 6TB, I still haven't filled those, I just needed to separate the bandwidth.

 

I would also argue against 'expensive' but I've learned against on this forum.

 

Regarding functions, you would spend a LOT of energy and know-how in setting up your system to work like efficient NAS. For regular user, downright impossible. It just does so much more, and handles everything so smoothly. It's server, web-hosting,..and huge list of stuff.

[jasonstewart]

Yea I just mean for what you pay the hardware is relatively slow. A 4 bay is $500 (I got confused before the 2 bay models are $300) and for that money you can do a nice server build and use one of the many free NAS OSs. I have ordered a HP Microserver N54L to use and a pair of 3tb Seagate NAS Drives for now, cost me ~$300 and it is 4 bay. With the 2 3TB drives I am at the mid range price of a bare DiskStation. Still figuring out what OS I will be running but I think it will work out well for what I need.

 

I have a Synology 5 bay at work and don't get me wrong it is a great NAS and it has been up and running for 3+ years without a single problem. That said, it is expensive for what we use it for (just file sharing). Synology is great because you plug it in, minimal configuration, add your drives and activate your preferred RAID and you are ready to add users and create some shares. The extra features are nice but we actually use 0 of them, mostly because our ISP does not allow port forwarding unless you pay extra for a static IP but also because I don't feel like managing them and making sure that they are secure connections. The synology forums are full of people concerned about the security of all the plug ins accessed from the internet and it was more than I wanted to get involved with. IDK, maybe if I had more "care free spending money" I would have just bought the synology, I had it in my cart a couple times in the last week.

[RyderSK]

I had thought of it many times actually. But not to save money, but to build some overkill 10gbit xeon core NAS with full sata6 for SSDs :- ).

I have always decided against for now.

 

The budget for device that centers around my whole office workflow is still very small imho. You said you didn't have single problem for 3 years. Isn't that worth those few hundreds ?

Everyone around me who tried to do the same and build some custom cheap NAS has all but trouble. It can be absolutely minimal trouble but why have it at all. You bring more variables into play that can screw stuff and take your time.

 

With that said, I wish you luck and maybe post how it looks and works :- ) Still interested in that.

[jasonstewart]

Well after thinking about it all weekend I ended up canceling my order for the Micro Server and ordered a DS414 instead. The amount of research I have already done on the different free NAS operating systems was a waste of time and I was no closer to selecting one. Unfortunately they all have compromises that I was not willing to overcome. Probably would have been fine but on top of it the Micro Server is double the size of the DS414 if not bigger and I would have to find somewhere to put it, my desk has a perfect spot to put the Synology so I think it will be worth it.

 

Now if Synology sold their OS separate with a list of verified hardware for lets say $50 I bet there would be a lot of people like you and I who would jump on that. There is a ripped off version called Xpenology but IMO it is in bad taste to rework and distribute the DSM OS and who knows what kind of trouble may come in the future with possible data loss...Doesn't seem worth it to save a few hundred dollars. Open Media Vault is another that seemed solid and stable with a lot of Microserver owners but they don't have as many features that I may use. FreeNAS and Nas4free seem solid but its hard to add a disk here or there. If you have a RAID 5 array (or their version called something else) you can't simply add a disk like you can with Synology. If you want to stay raid 5 you have to build a second array of 3 disks. The only logical choice with them if you may need more storage would be RAID 10 but then you only get 1/2 the storage and still have to add 2 disks at a time.

 

Windows 8 interested me for a little while. I guess they added a new feature from the server side called Storage Spaces that is more like a hybrid raid and a "self healing" file system as well. Seems like a logical choice in the future but it is early in its life and I don't want to be one of the first to adopt it. The nice thing is that any Windows 8 computer could read the data straight off the drive unlike these more obscure proprietary NAS OS file systems. Of course that is only useful if you run RAID 1 or 10 otherwise nothing will be able to make sense of what is on the drive and you will be missing portions of the files.

[Dimitris Tolios]

A good NAS is something like a good monitor: expensive, but think that you will be using it daily for almost anything you do, for far longer than most of the components your workstation - only in case of the NAS that can be true for more than one person simultaneously. So time & man hours "saved" troubleshooting, is actually multiplied by the people affected by it.

 

 

A decent Synology bought today, has the capacity to last you pretty much for as long as drives are supported and/or the interface is not seriously dated - i.e. as long as SATA 3 compatible drives are out, and Gbit or w/e is the network speed is still "relevant".

There are people that have been using their NAS for 8 years or so with no issue - little have changed.

 

 

Sure, you might need a 2014 model if you plan dropping in 6TB drives for example, but few people will have a real need for such massive archives in ArchViz, and those that realistically do will not split hair for a couple of $100.

[Nic H]

+1 on getting a synology nas

i got a 5 drive x 4tb a year ago at home, i run it as RAID 5 and its been seamless so far....

set up was instant and the software is and interface is good.

[Fooch]

+1

 

the time saved to hack patch a PC / Render server to a NAS etc can be spent on something better. Trust me.. i tried that ages ago

[numerobis]

What do you have to "hack patch" to run a file server?!?

If you invest the money for windows and if you don't need features like ftp or ownCloud where is the problem? Just set up a share, configure the power saving, wake on lan and a backup and you are done.

I'm running a WinXP/Win 7 server (i started with winxp, now win7) since 4 years now... no problems so far. And i have just build my new one - with SSD-caching for the RAID ...this has to prove its reliabilty in the long run but everything else?

[rhodesy]

Just wondering, do you guys keep all your texture paths / locations on your Nas drives? I tried that when I got first got my DS412+ over my gb network but found it to be a bit slow. So I just run everything directly from my workstation and have my nodes map the drives from my workstation. My Nas just backs up my workstation now.

[RyderSK]

It does become a bit of hassle with larger scenes, esp. Max takes its time to open the scene, the mat editor takes its time, accessing the damn bitmap browser will spiral... not sure of solution right now. I do like the universality of the solution though, it's necessity for more people who co-work.

I pondered the idea of SSDs in NAS as well.

[rhodesy]

Yeah I wish there was a better solution. I suppose it depends on who needs the fastest access. installing an ssd on your machine for textures gives you fast access and others can access the same drive over the network at the same speed as the NAS so no difference for them but it should help your machine! I have an ssd on mine where I had visions of transfereing all my textures to in a nice orderly fashion but I've discovered a tangled web of legacy projects and materials that's just a complete mess!

[numerobis]

I keep everything at the server (for backup etc.)

I had considered to add a 10Gbit connection between server and workstation, but because of the announcement of 25 Gigabit Ethernet i thought i should wait. But it seems to take another 12-18 months until products will be released...

Maybe i'll add some used 10GbE or Infiniband connection from WS to server, but for now i'll start with a second and maybe third 1Gb NIC for the server.

[jasonstewart]

Well if your connection is that fast you would need a huge array to get the data to actually come off the server that fast. If its not one thing its another.

 

Currently I have a standard run of the mill desktop drive that has all my stuff on it. Even a nice single drive can only put out 150mbps so with a 1g connection should there theoretically be little difference? One of the reasons I bought the DS414 was because it can make use of Link Aggregation so if at some point I need more speed out of it that is an option. Of course my Mobo only has a single LAN port but I could add a NIC if it became necessary. If you are sharing it between multiple users Link Aggregation would be necessary otherwise you will be constantly fighting for files (like my office is now).

 

Another option would be to work off the desktop and copy your textures etc. to the project folder but eventually you will end up with 10 copies of your favorite stuff to store. Maybe when the job is done delete them all and link back to the NAS and save on NAS? Certainly there are options out there to make it work well.

 

If you really need all that speed your best bet would be a large RAID 10 array with small hard drives to get the most drives reading as possible. Of course you only get 1/2 the capacity but it should double the read/write capability.

 

Everything should be here today, can't wait to get it all setup and start loading it with some junk from my various external drives, my laptop, and my desktop.

[numerobis]

Well if your connection is that fast you would need a huge array to get the data to actually come off the server that fast.

Or a SSD

[jasonstewart]

Or a SSD

 

I don't think SSDs are at the point where I would use them for mass storage but if you are crazy enough and have enough money anything is possible.

[RyderSK]

960GB Crucial M5, which seems to be the cheapest of the pack can be bought for 400 dollars. That's imho quite tolerable (I would even say excellent..) price. 1TB effectively is a lot for example if you use it for project folder.

[jasonstewart]

Right but you could get similar performance from a RAID array of 4 disks (600mbps if the hardware doesn't hold the disks back assuming they can each do 100mbps). If you buy 1tb disks that brings you to about the same price (minus other hardware of course) and you get 2 or 3 tb of storage based on the RAID you select. Of course there is the other benefit of having redundancy.

 

Now if we are talking about filling a NAS up with a bunch of SSDs then you sir are my idol haha.

[numerobis]

I don't think SSDs are at the point where I would use them for mass storage but if you are crazy enough and have enough money anything is possible.

Or use SSD-caching... i have just set up my new file server with RAID1 (2x 3TB) cached by 1 Samsung SSD using Intel Smart Response Technology http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/smart-response-technology.html

In theory when i work on a project all this frequently accessed data should be kept on the SSD (mirrored to the RAID1 / 64GB max) and i'm effectively working on a SSD.

We'll see how it works in practice...

 

Right but you could get similar performance from a RAID array of 4 disks

only for sequential data access of big files, if it's getting random with small files every disk solution is MUCH slower than a SSD

Edited September 3, 2014 by numerobis

[elipan]

I set up my Synology to RAID-6 instead of RAID-1 (I feel its more safe).

I still get ~110MB/s

Anyway my NAS is not capable for more then 118MB/s without Link-Aggregation.

 

And two SSD on my workstation - One for Windows 8 and software and second one for project directory.

 

Its true it takes some time to load projects because all assets are on the NAS.. BUT, if you work organized and you don't have any missing maps and stuff, the project loads relatively quick.

I guess because max doesn't look for them or not trying to generate error.

 

The real pain in the a$$ is when the NAS performs a backup. This is rough. But safety comes first

Edited August 28, 2014 by elipan

[hkahk]

Slow ? For what it does ? It's the best piece of HW in office. I had absolute zero problem with either Synology I have (212/414) and it's the next best thing I own. For first two years, I had only 2 HDDs there, that is 6TB, I still haven't filled those, I just needed to separate the bandwidth.

 

Hi Juraj,

 

I'm also plannning on getting a Synology

how do you backup your Synology. If you say you had only 2HDDs that is 6TB I assume you running two 3TB at Raid 0?

Do you then backup to an external HDD?

 

Thanks

[jasonstewart]

Slow ? For what it does ? It's the best piece of HW in office. I had absolute zero problem with either Synology I have (212/414) and it's the next best thing I own. For first two years, I had only 2 HDDs there, that is 6TB, I still haven't filled those, I just needed to separate the bandwidth.

 

Hi Juraj,

 

I'm also plannning on getting a Synology

how do you backup your Synology. If you say you had only 2HDDs that is 6TB I assume you running two 3TB at Raid 0?

Do you then backup to an external HDD?

 

Thanks

 

I am curious about this also. Say I have 2tb worth of storage on the Synology does that mean I have to have 2TB worth of backup or do backups somehow take less space due to a slower reading file system or something? Cant seem to find any info on this. If you had a loaded up Diskstation you would basically need a 2nd one to backup to?

 

With all these Celeb nude leaks my distrust in the cloud has been justified.

[elipan]

 

I am curious about this also. Say I have 2tb worth of storage on the Synology does that mean I have to have 2TB worth of backup or do backups somehow take less space due to a slower reading file system or something? Cant seem to find any info on this. If you had a loaded up Diskstation you would basically need a 2nd one to backup to?

 

With all these Celeb nude leaks my distrust in the cloud has been justified.

 

I solved it simple. All my files are stored on the Synology. I use GoodSync to back up everything to my workstation, to an external HDD and to a WD live drive.

 

Also the Synology is set up to RAID 6.

So it can fail up to half of the drives from the array and still be able to recover.

Also, don't bother about RAID 6 to be considered slow. If I get 100MB/s+ at anytime it's worth the extra money (got 4x3TB inside)

 

You can also make a RAID 10 which is basically most the same with 4 drives.