Selfhosted

52938 readers

750 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
No spam posting.
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
No trolling.

Resources:

selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
awesome-selfhosted software
awesome-sysadmin resources
Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

HybridSarcasm@lemmy.world

HybridSarcasm@lemmy.hybridsarcasm.xyz

Hardware raccomandation for new selfhoster (feddit.it)

submitted 15 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) by bordam@feddit.it to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world

35 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Hi, I wanted to start selfhosting and I'd like to have your opinion on something that I'm struggling to decide.

I don't plan to tinker too much with my system, I've been a Linux tinkerer myself some time ago but now I'd like to setup something that's really bulletproof and then leave it running (ofc I know I'll have to do a bit of bugfixing now and then), not replacing hardware ideally for >= 10 years.

This is why I'm planning to use TrueNAS, and that's why I'm planning to buy a UGREEN DXP2800: has two 3,5" HDD bays (4TB should be enough for me for the next 8-10 years, so I'll have two 4TB disks in RAID1 or mirror or whatever is recommended). Only problem I have with this machine is that it only has 1 RAM slot, and I guess 8 GB isn't enough if I use zfs. So I'll have to upgrade to either 16 or 32 GB. Now I did my research and from my understanding 16GB seems to be enough, but it would be such a waste having to replace the whole RAM if it turns out it isn't enough.

For reference, I don't plan on having more than 7-8 services running: Immich, Nextcloud+office, firefly, audiobookshelf, paperless and a maybe few more if they're useful. I value responsiveness but it's ok if some things take longer to process (thinking immich ML, or stuff like transcoding)

I'm very interested to know your opinion:

is the dxp2800 a good choice?
should I go with 16 or 32 GB RAM?

And a little extra

how much ssd space do you recommend for high speed data? is 500gb enough?

Thank you so much!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] non_burglar@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

A dual disk setup for ZFS (or any other kind of RAID) is super wasteful.

Based on what? I've been running ZFS since it was Solaris-only and raidz1/raidz2 are OK, but they come with complexity and performance penalties, and they're somewhat less portable than a mirror. There are many advantages to simple mirrors: first-response reads, block correction, scrubs, etc.

[–] fonix232@fedia.io 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Portability is not really an aspect one needs to consider when it comes to a NAS. Performance hits? Z1 will have performance issues when running in a simple mirror (especially for writes), but with 4+ disks that reduces significantly.

Sure scrubs will take longer on a multi-disk array, but again for a home NAS, the goal is maximising data storage capacity without a major hit on performance, ideally being able to saturate the most common gigabit LAN connection and have some more bandwidth available for local processing.

[–] non_burglar@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

Portability is not really an aspect one needs to consider when it comes to a NAS

Hard disagree, and it is one of the best things about ZFS. You can plunk a ZFS pool on another system and be almost certain it will import. Systems die. Having been through several data-loss incidents, I find it is much preferable to be able to pull 1 disk than have to drag out 2 or three to transplant a ZFS pool.

Regarding the scrubs, I was trying to indicate that ZFS is more than just a raid manager, there are advantages to ZFS on even a single disk.

for a home NAS, the goal is maximising data storage capacity without a major hit on performance

If that were entirely true, striping would be the most popular ZFS pool arrangement, since you get performance and max storage.

Edit: this was not to say "you're wrong", just different approaches to storage.