Jeremy Colvin
asked on
NAS vs FPS Server - Which would be better?
I have been considering buying a NAS to add to my environment. But as I analyze the costs/performance, I'm finding myself thinking "wouldn't a server be better for that and not cost much more?"
Primarily I'm looking for 3 main functions of whichever I choose:
1) DATA STORAGE
2) VM Host for multiple VM's
3) Multimedia Host (music, movies, photos, etc)(can I run plex on a server?)
If I were to go the NAS route (config listed below) I'd be looking at about $6,000.
If I were to go the Server route (config listed below NAS option) I'd be looking at about $7,000.
NAS Config:
NAS = QNAP TS-1277-1700
* Processor: AMD Ryzen 7 1700 8-core 3.0GHz
* RAM 64GB RAM
* High-Performance 12 Bay (8+4) NAS/iSCSI IP-SAN.
* DATA Drives: (8) - 10TB seagate drives (ST10000NM0086) (set up in RAID 5)
* VM Drives: (2) - Samsung 970 EVO Plus Series - 2TB PCIe NVMe - M.2 Internal SSD
* NIC: Quad 1GB
---- OR ----
Server Config:
Server: Dell PowerEdge T640 Tower
Pertinent Specs:
* Processor: Intel Xeon Gold 5218 2.3G, 16 core/32 Thread, 22M Cache - DDR4-2666
* Memory: 128 GB 288-Pin LRDIMM DDR4 (PC4-21300)
* 18 BAY x 3.5" SAS / SATA HD's (of which I would fill 8 bays up with the 10TB drives)
* Hardware Raid Controller: PERC H740P
* DATA Drives: (8) 10TB seagate drives (ST10000NM0086) (set up in RAID 5)
* OS & VM OS Drives: (2) Samsung 970 EVO Plus Series - 2TB PCIe NVMe - M.2 Internal SSD
* NIC: On-Board Dual-Port 10GbE LOM
* Power Supply: DUAL, Hot-plug, Redundant Power Supply (1+1), 1100W
* Trusted Platform Module 2.0
NOT taking into account the ridiculous licensing costs of MS Server (I already have spare's that I'm not currently using) I'm having a tough time trying to justify a NAS over a Server. The HARDWARE cost is about the same, but with the server, I'm getting:
* 16 cores with the server vs. only 8 with the NAS (which would come in very handy with VM's)
* 128 GB of RAM (which I could easily double later if needed) - whereas on the NAS I'm capped at 64GB.
* 18 Bay's on the server vs only 12 on the NAS
* 1100 watt power supply on the server vs only 450 on the NAS
* DUAL 10GB network on the server vs only quad 1GB on the NAS
But I feel like I'm missing something... some big argument over why a NAS would be worth the $ instead of going with a dedicated server? I understand all the clear things, ie, server will be MUCH louder, (but also much better cooled) Server will eat up MUCH more (almost 3 times) the power, Server would be much larger than the NAS, etc...
But what else am I missing? Why go NAS instead of spending an extra $1k and going with the server? The server config I'm looking at appears to be MUCH more powerful (and upgrade-able) than the NAS...
* Both would work just fine as a "File Backup" device.
* I -think- both would work fine as a media server
* I KNOW the server would easily handle the VM's, I question whether or not the NAS would.
So, what am I missing? What are your thoughts? Server vs. NAS?
Looking to purchase in the next couple of days, so I'd love to hear opinions and arguments supporting either option. (or a different solution if you have one)
Thanks!
Primarily I'm looking for 3 main functions of whichever I choose:
1) DATA STORAGE
2) VM Host for multiple VM's
3) Multimedia Host (music, movies, photos, etc)(can I run plex on a server?)
If I were to go the NAS route (config listed below) I'd be looking at about $6,000.
If I were to go the Server route (config listed below NAS option) I'd be looking at about $7,000.
NAS Config:
NAS = QNAP TS-1277-1700
* Processor: AMD Ryzen 7 1700 8-core 3.0GHz
* RAM 64GB RAM
* High-Performance 12 Bay (8+4) NAS/iSCSI IP-SAN.
* DATA Drives: (8) - 10TB seagate drives (ST10000NM0086) (set up in RAID 5)
* VM Drives: (2) - Samsung 970 EVO Plus Series - 2TB PCIe NVMe - M.2 Internal SSD
* NIC: Quad 1GB
---- OR ----
Server Config:
Server: Dell PowerEdge T640 Tower
Pertinent Specs:
* Processor: Intel Xeon Gold 5218 2.3G, 16 core/32 Thread, 22M Cache - DDR4-2666
* Memory: 128 GB 288-Pin LRDIMM DDR4 (PC4-21300)
* 18 BAY x 3.5" SAS / SATA HD's (of which I would fill 8 bays up with the 10TB drives)
* Hardware Raid Controller: PERC H740P
* DATA Drives: (8) 10TB seagate drives (ST10000NM0086) (set up in RAID 5)
* OS & VM OS Drives: (2) Samsung 970 EVO Plus Series - 2TB PCIe NVMe - M.2 Internal SSD
* NIC: On-Board Dual-Port 10GbE LOM
* Power Supply: DUAL, Hot-plug, Redundant Power Supply (1+1), 1100W
* Trusted Platform Module 2.0
NOT taking into account the ridiculous licensing costs of MS Server (I already have spare's that I'm not currently using) I'm having a tough time trying to justify a NAS over a Server. The HARDWARE cost is about the same, but with the server, I'm getting:
* 16 cores with the server vs. only 8 with the NAS (which would come in very handy with VM's)
* 128 GB of RAM (which I could easily double later if needed) - whereas on the NAS I'm capped at 64GB.
* 18 Bay's on the server vs only 12 on the NAS
* 1100 watt power supply on the server vs only 450 on the NAS
* DUAL 10GB network on the server vs only quad 1GB on the NAS
But I feel like I'm missing something... some big argument over why a NAS would be worth the $ instead of going with a dedicated server? I understand all the clear things, ie, server will be MUCH louder, (but also much better cooled) Server will eat up MUCH more (almost 3 times) the power, Server would be much larger than the NAS, etc...
But what else am I missing? Why go NAS instead of spending an extra $1k and going with the server? The server config I'm looking at appears to be MUCH more powerful (and upgrade-able) than the NAS...
* Both would work just fine as a "File Backup" device.
* I -think- both would work fine as a media server
* I KNOW the server would easily handle the VM's, I question whether or not the NAS would.
So, what am I missing? What are your thoughts? Server vs. NAS?
Looking to purchase in the next couple of days, so I'd love to hear opinions and arguments supporting either option. (or a different solution if you have one)
Thanks!
Gurvinder Bharya
My argument is very simple in regard to your situation: If the requirement is as simple as file sharing, I would go with the NAS. If I have any additional requirement that spans beyond file sharing, I would go with the server. I am sure the server addons/upgrades push the price of the server far beyond the price of a fully loaded NAS box.
ASKER
Thank you for your comment Gurvinder, However, today's NAS boxes can do so much more than "just file sharing" - the one I'm looking at boasts the ability to easily run VM's on it for example, along with a host of other apps, including plex services... The fully loaded NAS would be about $6k, the hardware config of the server I'm considering (which is quite a bit more beefy than the NAS would only run me about $1k more than the NAS. (again, not counting MS licensing). There are a lot of nice features on today's NAS boxes, just not sure they would out-weigh that which I can get out of a server. I'm honestly up in the air about it. I feel like I'm leaning more towards the server, but also feel like maybe I'm missing some benefits of having a NAS vs. another server.
Don't forget OS management of a server and patching, and also setup!
e.g. install OS and update all patches, and configuring it....and do you really need all that performance in a Dell 640, which is often sold for vSAN Ready Nodes, as a Hypervisor!
e.g. install OS and update all patches, and configuring it....and do you really need all that performance in a Dell 640, which is often sold for vSAN Ready Nodes, as a Hypervisor!
ASKER
Very good point Andrew, though that is something that isn't a concern. I'm an IT professional, have been for 25 years. The reason that I'm even looking at the Dell server, is because I just recently (a couple of weeks ago) configured/installed one of these at a clients office who was upgrading from Server 2008 running 2 VM's, one of them being Exchange 2010 - Complete fresh from the ground up install with full manual data and mailbox manual migration (What a pain in the rump that was) to Server 2019 running 4 VM's (PDC - 2019 server, Exchange 2019 on 2019 server, APPS on 2019 server and a Win 10 pro WS for the 4th VM. - the server handled the VM's like they were a cake walk. Up until then, I was really leaning towards a new NAS, but after that server build, it's hard not to be tempted by it. Still... I don't know much of anything about all the new NAS's out there... so I feel like I'm missing a piece of the puzzle on the NAS front, which is why I'm here looking to verify if I will run into any "oh crap, I didn't think about that" type things... But yes, I love your point about the work that goes into server config vs. nas config, but in my case, it's not a road block. Thank you for the thought though!
Purchase a server - if you like the IT Management of Managing and watering a feeding a server!
We've been using NASes since 2004! (for file storage in a commercial environment, snapshot backup and replication).
We would not use a NAS for hosting VMs though, storage yes - but not hosting VMs. (and then only DR non-production)
A Server is always going to give you more options, that you create!
1 & 2 in your list - suggest a server!
We've been using NASes since 2004! (for file storage in a commercial environment, snapshot backup and replication).
We would not use a NAS for hosting VMs though, storage yes - but not hosting VMs. (and then only DR non-production)
A Server is always going to give you more options, that you create!
1 & 2 in your list - suggest a server!
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Make sure the SSD storage devices have power loss protection whatever the route. No PLP = lost data with a power outage.
maybe consider a much lower cost server.
- a nas does not need much cpu.
- use a cheap server with either 2 decent raid card or a single one and the motherboard ports
- manually configure zfs or possibly use something like freenas
- use raid10 if you need performance
- maybe throw in an ssd or two and configure the zil on a small partition and use the rest for caching
A less than 2k bucks 2U server with a 800 bucks raid card used as jbod will handle 12 3.5 inches drives or a whole lot of 2.5 drives and deliver much better performance than whatever you seem to have in mind
in hhe above setup and pricing, the disks would be SATA rather than SAS.
With 10x 3.5 drives and 2 preferrably slc flash drives, expect about 500 Mo per secont writes and 1Go reads, instantaneout write commits and about 1k iops per seconds for writing and 2k fir reading
... that is more than likely much more than a 15k NAS will ever dream to do
note that i did not include the price oc the drives. A decent hitachi 2-3Go drive should be around 100 120 bucks.... x 10. Add 300 bucks for a couple of SSDs which you need not have from the start or might be included with some decent motherboards.
Just a thought...
- a nas does not need much cpu.
- use a cheap server with either 2 decent raid card or a single one and the motherboard ports
- manually configure zfs or possibly use something like freenas
- use raid10 if you need performance
- maybe throw in an ssd or two and configure the zil on a small partition and use the rest for caching
A less than 2k bucks 2U server with a 800 bucks raid card used as jbod will handle 12 3.5 inches drives or a whole lot of 2.5 drives and deliver much better performance than whatever you seem to have in mind
in hhe above setup and pricing, the disks would be SATA rather than SAS.
With 10x 3.5 drives and 2 preferrably slc flash drives, expect about 500 Mo per secont writes and 1Go reads, instantaneout write commits and about 1k iops per seconds for writing and 2k fir reading
... that is more than likely much more than a 15k NAS will ever dream to do
note that i did not include the price oc the drives. A decent hitachi 2-3Go drive should be around 100 120 bucks.... x 10. Add 300 bucks for a couple of SSDs which you need not have from the start or might be included with some decent motherboards.
Just a thought...
ASKER
skullNoBrains,
1) Why in the world would I ever want to set up a "NAS" like (with the purpose of a second *safe* data copy) server in JBOD? Back the data up to the server just to risk a drive failure and end up with lost data? Raid redundancy makes much more sense than any JBOD config.
2) I understand that a NAS (used solely for backup purposes) doesn't need much CPU, but as I have outlined, I intend on running AT LEAST 4-5 VM servers and several VM workstations, not to mention the possibility of also running some kind of multimedia host, plex decoding alone will need processing power to transcode properly, will it not?
1) Why in the world would I ever want to set up a "NAS" like (with the purpose of a second *safe* data copy) server in JBOD? Back the data up to the server just to risk a drive failure and end up with lost data? Raid redundancy makes much more sense than any JBOD config.
2) I understand that a NAS (used solely for backup purposes) doesn't need much CPU, but as I have outlined, I intend on running AT LEAST 4-5 VM servers and several VM workstations, not to mention the possibility of also running some kind of multimedia host, plex decoding alone will need processing power to transcode properly, will it not?
ASKER
Philip, great point, and one definitely to keep in mind that I hadn't even thought of, and that does change where I would locate it (thank you) - I was contemplating the basement (to get away from the noise) but all of my big APC's are up here in the office... so to your point, would be much smarter putting it up here on one of them.... I just know from experience (from the last one that I just recently built) that the dang thing sounds like a jet engine with it's over-powered fans running... great for keeping it cool... but definitely adds dB to the office. :( - thinking now that I may add some sound deadening cubes to my rack enclosure here in the office and stick it in there! lol Thanks for your input Philip, great point you made!
ASKER
John, very good points... and honestly why I am leaning more towards a server - because it gives me more versatility than just a NAS... though there are some things I like about the "set it and forget it" aspect of a NAS, in particular with dumping backup data to... Perhaps what I should be doing is reevaluating my needs, spending the $ on the server, but not stuffing it with drive space, then picking up a cheaper NAS just as a backup solution, use some of the drives to stuff into the NAS and just use the NAS for peace of mind in data-dumping... I think what caused me to consider just a NAS, was the reports and specs that now a days NAS's are capable of so much more than just remote data dumps.
ASKER
Thanks again for your input Andrew... I think you (along with the others, and myself) are right, in terms of what I'm wanting out of it, being more server related tasks than NAS optimal tasks... Thanks for helping to talk me off the ledge so to speak! :)
There are some really nice custom chassis that can be set up with a Micro-ATX or Mini-ITX board, processor, and RAM that can then in-turn be configured with water cooling that has one really big slow turning fan to keep the air moving.
There are a number of custom standalone and cluster boutique builds that are configured to keep the sound down.
And yes, UPS setup is critical for keeping that data safe. A proper shutdown is mandatory with no trigger to fire things up for at least 5-10 minutes post power return to protect from the possible down/up/down/up cycle that can happen.
SilverStone and U-NAS are two chassis we've used for our own builds. They can be quite quiet.
There are a number of custom standalone and cluster boutique builds that are configured to keep the sound down.
And yes, UPS setup is critical for keeping that data safe. A proper shutdown is mandatory with no trigger to fire things up for at least 5-10 minutes post power return to protect from the possible down/up/down/up cycle that can happen.
SilverStone and U-NAS are two chassis we've used for our own builds. They can be quite quiet.
1) Why in the world would I ever want to set up a "NAS" like (with the purpose of a second *safe* data copy) server in JBOD? Back the data up to the server just to risk a drive failure and end up with lost data? Raid redundancy makes much more sense than any JBOD config.
because you would use software raid on top of the JBOD. multiple benchmarks proove this to be usually more efficient than a hardware raid for raid 10. additionally, 2 separate cards would handle each halves of the raids 1 which allows more throughput and is more resilient.
it is also much easier to manage and monitor. and safer : ZFS will know which copy of 2 mirrored blocks is correct. the RAID card will at best detect they disagree.
2) I understand that a NAS (used solely for backup purposes) doesn't need much CPU, but as I have outlined, I intend on running AT LEAST 4-5 VM servers and several VM workstations, not to mention the possibility of also running some kind of multimedia host, plex decoding alone will need processing power to transcode properly, will it not?
multiple vms are not an issue. an entry grade server's CPU would handle that load easily. the IOPs would be the limitiing factor. not the CPU. typically, in such setups, entry grade CPUS hardly exceed a few percent usage.
also note that with a bunch of VMs, unless you run the VMs on the NAS itself, ( which would require a decent CPU ), a 1Gb network will not be able to get you the max throughput of the above setup. ( which i've used multiple times in production )
transcoding is a whole other story. if you have multiple users and expect to transcode HD, forget about a commercial NAS. or go really expensive. they do not have the CPU power. by far. NAS vendors know the CPU is not an issue and tend to put REALLY low end hardware to minimise the costs.
--
... now if you want something for your home and your VMS are not production servers, i guess a 2k NAS such as the cheapest synology would probably do. or the above setup with a mere 4 drives on much cheaper hardware. possibly an old unused computer would do. an athlon would transcode for a single user. an i5 would do for a family. a decent graphic card might do much better depending on what you transcode. stick that in a big tower with the biggest possible fans, underclock the CPU and you're done.
If you are still trying to figure out the best option...i would throw one more...
Just go out in the market and look for refurbished servers with a lot of HDDs....weight your needs in space/performance and just pick a cheap one...
You will save money...you will have a server with plenty of space ...ready for NAS-alike deployment ...and if after some time you come to the conclusion that this is not what you wanted ...you would still have the money to do it...after all extra space is always useful.
A quick find
the cheap :
Dell PowerEdge R710 6B LFF Server 12-Core 128GB RAM 12TB RAID Dell PowerEdge R710 Bezel and Rails --> $625
the expensive :
Dell PowerEdge R720xd 12-Bay LFF 2U Server, 2X E5-2650 V2 2.6GHz 8C, 48GB DDR3, 12x 3TB 7.2K SAS 6Gbps 3.5, PERC H710p, iDRAC 7 Express, 2X 750W PSUs, Rails (Renewed) -- > $1,495.00
Just format it with FreeNas...deploy your VMs via the builtin Virtualization feature (VirtualBox)...and you are good to go.
Just go out in the market and look for refurbished servers with a lot of HDDs....weight your needs in space/performance and just pick a cheap one...
You will save money...you will have a server with plenty of space ...ready for NAS-alike deployment ...and if after some time you come to the conclusion that this is not what you wanted ...you would still have the money to do it...after all extra space is always useful.
A quick find
the cheap :
Dell PowerEdge R710 6B LFF Server 12-Core 128GB RAM 12TB RAID Dell PowerEdge R710 Bezel and Rails --> $625
the expensive :
Dell PowerEdge R720xd 12-Bay LFF 2U Server, 2X E5-2650 V2 2.6GHz 8C, 48GB DDR3, 12x 3TB 7.2K SAS 6Gbps 3.5, PERC H710p, iDRAC 7 Express, 2X 750W PSUs, Rails (Renewed) -- > $1,495.00
Just format it with FreeNas...deploy your VMs via the builtin Virtualization feature (VirtualBox)...and you are good to go.
That s actually cheap ! And good enough if you buy new hard drives. With freenas, you can even run the virtual servers directly on the above hardware, either on bhyve, virtualbox, or possibly qemu