n00b question, sorry. If I had a desktop that could hold 4 HD and 2 SSD, could I turn it into a NAS? Could someone point me in the right direction if this makes sense?

  • snakedrake@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yep. Just install Linux, plug it into your router, set a static ip, and install the nas software ya want.

    There are plenty of approaches. ChatGPT is great at debugging issues and helping ya through the setup. I did this with a raspberry pi and external usb drive the other week.

      • nutbutter@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Some people even use Raspberry Pis as their NAS. I use an old MacBook (5th gen i5) as a home server with 2 external hard drives as a NAS, which also runs a few docker containers like Jellyfin. Before that, I was using an old PC with 1st gen i3 for all these things.

  • dan@upvote.au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It’ll work fine. A NAS is just a PC. Try Unraid if you want a user friendly UI. It costs money but it’s only a one off payment for a lifetime license, and they have a free trial.

  • BCsven@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    You totally can, but since it will be on all day with 4 hdd look into wattages you want to live with. There are some small NUCs or Pi based NAS with low wattages. There is OpenMediaVault, FreeNAS/TrueNAS software to install

    • comfydecal@infosec.pubOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hey sorry, thinking on this more, could I just turn on the NAS when desired? What is the benefit of running it constantly?

      • SayCyberOnceMore@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yep, look into Wake On LAN if you just want to power the NAS on remotely.

        My NAS also powers on at certaIn times of day and off again after a while - IF - no-one’s connected / no network traffic / etc.

        I do NOT need my NAS on at 3am…

        Edit : forgot to say, check out OpenMediaVault

        • rentar42@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Note that there is some reliability drawback of spinning hard disks on and off repeatedly. maybe unintuitively HDDs that spin constantly can live much longer than those that spend 90% of their time spun down.

          This might not be relevant if you use only SSDs, and might never affect you, but it should be mentioned.

          • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            You can also configure the HDDs to power down when they’re not in use. HDDs are the biggest power consumer anyway.

      • BCsven@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        You could totally turn on as needed, WakeOnLan is good for that. But typically when people run a NAS it is for streaming audio, video, file sync and backups and maybe docker running other services so the NAS is typically on 24/7 so it is available on demand. But it doean’t have to be 100% uptime if you don’t want it to be. For example I have two OpenMediaVaults one on a pi and one an old IomegaNAS. The pi is on always with an attached drive, and serves Samba Shares and DLNA/DAAP shares. Has docker running syncthing, CUPS print server, Trillium Notes, and homeassistant; so makes sense for it to be on all day, especially because my wife’s system backsup to it daily automatically. The converted Iomega NAS is mainly a backup machine sInce it is old and not as performant (only has 100 network speed. So that gets turned on to do a bulk backup and not much else.

  • Monkey With A Shell@lemmy.socdojo.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Anything that can can provide storage attached to the network is a potential NAS. It doesn’t take a lot of power to just offer and store files. If you start getting into stuff like live transcoding or heavy encrypt/decrypt that’s a bit different matter.

  • 0110010001100010@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    No reason why not. May be a little power-hungry depending on the spec but if you already have it go for it. FreeNAS (now TrueNAS) is the usually suggested OS to run: https://www.truenas.com/freenas/

    Since you have 4 HDD slots probably run 4 disks in a RAID 5 so think of how much space you need. RAID 5 is n-1 so if you have 4x 10TB drives you will be left with 30TB of space before formatting. You can calculate here: https://www.raid-calculator.com/

    Then either mirror the SSDs for OS and caching or just use one. Depends on your budget really.

    • cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Power consumption is the main issue. If it’s an old, power hungry desktop and you live somewhere with expensive electricity, it can be quite costly to run. If you have an energy efficient desktop or have cheap power then it will be fine. Just make sure it has a good quality power supply if it’s going to run 24/7.

    • bc3114@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Maybe I’m dumb but looking at wikipedia I’m a bit confused. Seems like you can do this on almost any linux distro. What is the reason behind setting up a dedicated OS, cost of operation, stability, performance?

      • PupBiru@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        kinda the same reason people suggest something like linux mint over slackware, gentoo, arch, etc… mint is easy to install and is preconfigured to be an easy to use user desktop environment. you can configure any other option to be have like that, but they tend to be a bit more “DIY”, which is great if you know what you’re doing!

        dedicated NAS OSes will have good software out of the box that make it easy to configure and manage various common disk-related configurations (RAID, SMB, NFS, etc). you can certainly do all this yourself, but it might not have a pretty, unified user interface, or you might have to deal with software that isn’t compatible with some version of a library that’s in your distro of choice… all resolvable things, but they take time to solve: anywhere from installing a package manually to applying a kernel patch and recompiling the kernel to get something to work

      • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not everybody has the knowledge to deal with Linux. A product line TrueNAS or Unraid has a friendly GUI that can be used by a non-technical user.

  • rtxn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Absolutely anything can be turned into a NAS, as long as you’re aware of your own needs and the hardware’s capabilities. A NAS is just a computer with some specific requirements.

    When I first built my NAS, it only used parts that I got for free. A cheap micro ATX board with only two RAM slots, an i3-4160 CPU, 2x2G RAM, a worn-out SSD, and a 1T HDD. It couldn’t run something like TrueNAS, but it was enough for Proxmox and some Alpine containers running services like Samba, Transmission, Wireguard, and a small Debian VM for me to fuck around with. The single storage disk means there is no redundancy, so I only store replaceable data on it, like TV shows and installers.

    There are many hardware-focused channels on video platforms that offer guides for budget home servers. Wolfgang’s Channel is good, and Hardware Haven and Raid Owl just finished a competition of building a sub-$200 home lab.

  • Encrypt-Keeper@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    My NAS is just a very old Acer desktop from like 2011. I bought a Fractal Meshify 2 case which can hold I think 14 hard drives and moved the internals into that. Works great.

    Eventually I had to get a pcie card for more data ports, and replace the power supply with one that’s more than 300w.

  • Decronym@lemmy.decronym.xyzB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I’ve seen in this thread:

    Fewer Letters More Letters
    LXC Linux Containers
    NAS Network-Attached Storage
    NUC Next Unit of Computing brand of Intel small computers
    Plex Brand of media server package
    RAID Redundant Array of Independent Disks for mass storage
    SATA Serial AT Attachment interface for mass storage
    SSD Solid State Drive mass storage
    ZFS Solaris/Linux filesystem focusing on data integrity

    [Thread #377 for this sub, first seen 27th Dec 2023, 01:15] [FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]

  • ULS@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Another option is to use openmediavault.

    I haven’t looked at truenas.

    • Corgana@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      TrueNAS is very good at being a NAS. I used it for some time but eventually moved to CasaOS because it’s better at being a home server.

      • patchexempt@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I hadn’t heard of CasaOS before; looks very cool. I am currently on TrueNAS and it’s been fine, but I had been running it in a VM because it wasn’t a good fit for running other things along side it. This seems like an interesting solution, thanks!

  • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    My first NAS was an old desktop that I got for $300 running an FX-6300 and a GTX 550, I slapped a couple hard drives in there, installed Ubuntu, and made an SMB share.

    I’d recommend installing TrueNAS Scale on a system rather than doing what I did in part due to it being so much better than what I was doing, but you could run it on a potato if you wanted.

    Hell my latest NAS upgrade is going from a PowerEdge T610 (tower server from like 2010ish) running TrueNAS Scale to a normal desktop (from 2017) running TrueNAS Scale

    If anything using normal desktop hardware makes servicing it easier than using old server hardware

  • Aceticon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    A NAS is basically some software running on a computer, so you can use a desktop as that computer, ideally with a light operating system (for example, Linux in text only mode).

    HOWEVER: desktops are designed for far higher computational loads than needed by a NAS, plus things like graphical user interfaces and direct connection of user peripherals such as mice, so even when idle they consume a lot more power than the kind of hardware used in a typical NAS.

    Also the hardware in a good NAS will have things like extra higher speed connectors for HDDs/SDDs (such as SATA) rather than you having to use slower stuff like USB.

    So keep in mind that a desktop as NAS will consume significantly more power than a dedicated NAS (as the latter will probably be running on something like an ARM and have a power source dimensioned for a couple of HDDs, not to run a dedicate graphics card like a desktop has) and probably won’t fit as many disks.

    If you’re ok with having most disks be accessed a bit slower and USB3 work for you (and, for example, if your NAS is on 100 Mbit Ethernet, it’s the network that’s the slowest thing, not USB3) then it’s usually better to use an old notebook rather than desktop because notebooks were designed for running of batteries hence consume significantly less power.

    Frankly I would advise against using an old desktop as NAS mainly because in a year or two of continued use you’ll have paid enough in extra electricity costs vs using a NAS to pay for a simple but decent dedicated NAS.

    • Chriswild@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If they were to run some applications on the side it would validate the power usage. Like if it also was a Plex server it could be more reasonable to use more power.

      Could also really hinge on the electricity cost for their region. At 10 cents a kwh and a delta of 100 watts we’d be talking 87 dollars a year assuming it’s always running at a delta of 100 watts.

      I doubt there will be a 100 watt delta especially newer architectures that idle really well.

      • Aceticon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Whilst a 100W delta seems unlikelly, a 50W delta seems realistic as the kind of stuff you have in a NAS will use maybe 5W (about the same as a Raspberry PI, possibly less) whilst the typical desktop PC uses significantly more even outside graphics mode (part of the reason to use Linux in text mode only is exactly to try and save power there). It mainly depends on what the desktop was used for before: a “gaming PC” with a dedicated graphics card from an old enough generation (i.e. with HW from back before the manufactures of GPUs started competing on power usage) will use signiificantly more power than integrated graphics even in idle mode.

        That said, making it a “home server” as you suggest makes a lot of sense - if that thing is an “All In One” server (media server, NAS, print server, torrent download server and so on) loaded with software of your choice (and hence stuff that respects your privacy and doesn’t shove Ads in your face) it’s probably a superior solution to getting those things as separate standalone devices, especially in the current era of enshittification.

  • zzzz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Unraid is a great option for anyone, but beginners in particular. It does, however, cost money and isn’t open source.

  • unsaid0415@szmer.info
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Yeah. That’s what I used to do when I started out.

    The simplest thing to do is install Debian on the computer and create partitions. You have 4 HDDs and 2 SSDs so it’d be stupid to create 6 separate partitions for each drive.

    See in the BIOS if your motherboard supports software RAID1, so you are protected against drive failure somewhat. This will allow you to get something barebones running that’ll use at least 2 drives with redundancy. I assume the mobo RAID1 is stupid and only allows for max 2 drives, so the other drives will be just laying around useless. If that’s the case, probably use the 2 SSDs first. I see other posters recommending higher orders of RAID, but I only have 2 HDDs so I never really delved into that :P Perhaps that’s sound

    With a system like that you could probably set up some small NFS for sharing your files by configuring it manually from the terminal.

    Note that going with raw linux is “simpler” in the sense that it’s perhaps easier to wrap your head around or tinker with, but TrueNAS or Unraid have GUIs that will allow you to create e.g. the mentioned NFS share with a few clicks, rather than having to do it from the terminal. Depends on what you’re looking for. You could move up to TrueNAS or Unraid once you’ve played with raw Linux enough for example.


    Once you have that,

    I only ever dealt with ZFS and TrueNAS. ZFS will allow you to create a “partition” (pool in zfs terms) from many drives at the same time, so you’d be able to use more drives than just the two from RAID1.


    The drives that you have are probably shitty SMR drives whose write speed dramatically slows down once you’re writing to them for a longer time. Consider buying CMR drives in the future, or just going all-SSD if it fits your usecase. ZFS hates SMR drives.

    • PupBiru@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      i’d avoid BIOS-based RAID… it doesn’t really offer many benefits over linux-based raid like MDADM, and MDADM offers a LOT of up-sides for portability, repairability, diagnostics, etc

      • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        BIOS RAID tends to be the worst of both worlds, it’s not real hardware RAID and it’s not as flexible as full software RAID.