Since you're already building a custom server, isn't it just better to include HDDs in there, and have a single box? (just get a bigger case, SFF for example) It'd be good for power consumption as well. What are you trying to achieve with a separate NAS?
this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2024
15 points (100.0% liked)
Jellyfin: The Free Software Media System
5690 readers
65 users here now
Current stable release: 10.10.0
Matrix (General Information & Help)
Matrix (Off-Topic) - Come get to know the team and blow off steam!
Matrix Space - List of all the available rooms on Matrix.
Discord - Bridged to our Matrix rooms
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Well, mainly it is just what I read in various "guides". But also it sounds easier to assemble... the minipc is just a box, no need to do any hardware stuff. And I think the NAS is pretty much the same. Plus it would allow me to easily start small on space and then add more (I think).
Also, I think it would be quieter. I assume putting it all in one would mean basically a tower with lots of fans and what not. The minipc is supposed to be pretty quiet. Don't know about the NAS though.
Oh of you didn't want to mess with hardware setups, them it makes sense.
FYI, there are nas cases like the jonsbo, and Celeron processors that you can build entirely fanless too.
To be fair i really like having a separate nas to my main docker/proxmox applications server. It allows me to mess around with my services or restart the system while not having to mess with the more sensitive spinning drives or important services like pihole.
Also gives me a nice method for local backup in 3-2-1 method.
That being said, I wouldn't recommend this for someone just starting out.
If anyone is wondering, I have the docker container itself mount the NFS share from the Unraid NAS. My docker server is all nvme ssds for things like the app itself and its config. Large data sets like photos and media are in the same via NFS.
Can you elaborate on why you wouldn't recommend it for someone just starting out?
Hmm I see, you can always temporarily disconnect the drives too.
For inspiration:
Old setup:
- Computer/file host: 11th Gen NUC
- Ext. 8TB HDD via USB
- Passed through docker to Jellyfin container
- File administration via arr-suite and SMB on my PC.
New setup:
- Compute: 11th Gen NUC
- Runs docker
- file storage: TrueNAS scale via NFS to proxmox (direct connection via ethernet. uGreen DXP4800+ 10GbE <-> 13th Gen NUC with optional 2.5GbE LAN interface)
- File host: Debian-VM
- Mounted to NUC via NFS
- File administration/access:
- PC: SMB to file server
- arr-Suite: NFS mount passed from host
- Jellyfin: Access via direct NFS mount in docker compose.
While not painless I think I learned a substantial amount on how Posix permissions work and confirms why native ACLs while more complicated are superior.
Also learned a bit about Samba, fstab and NFS c:
I have a mini pc with a 4TB drive connected to it for my jellyfin server, I also use the server as a nas for my osmc pi to watch stuff on the living room TV. 1Gbs is plenty fast for 1080p
First off you don't need cross over cables in 2024.
If you are just doing purely a media server you are fine with the local lan. Just get a switch and be done with it. If you are planning on doing something storage intensive like a bunch of VMs doing intensive work then you can get a dedicated link between the devices. However, that is most likely unneeded.
Stick the minipc and NAS on the same LAN. Almost all LANs are at least 1Gb which is far more than you need to stream a video of 4-8Mb/s for 1080P
I have a Mini PC from China for 200$ Canuckian (That's like 25 US dollars) which has two 2.5 GB ports. A lot of NASes these days also have 2.5 GB. As long as you don't stick a 1GB switch between them, you have plenty fast speeds.
Connected my NAS 10GbE directly to my proxmox 2.5GbE interface.
Set up the IP as static with jumbo frames and voilá direct NFS storage.
Took me 4 weeks to get it all together but man was it satisfying to see it work.
If you can avoid having you server and the media library on separate systems you should. That means buying (or I suppose building, but I wouldn't recommend it) a NAS with sufficient processing ability to stream / transcode as much as you need, or stuffing a lot of storage into your mini PC.
One of the problems you'll run into if you use separate systems is that it's non-trivial to get the server to automatically notice new items in the media library and update to include them. I'm sure there are others.
Also makes it much simpler to set up backups and migrate the compute-focused pc to a new OS without needing to look much after the files
no, you dont need multiple nics. todays networking is plenty fast. if you really wanted to mount fast youd maybe consider a iscsi, but thats just me showing my age.
depending on the nas... you would make some shared foldering available to the jellyfin machine to mount over the network. users connect to the jellyfin machine, jellyfin feeds them its mounted content.
personally, i use a local copy of the content (6x4tb drives) on the same machine as jellyfin and use the nas as backup. you have a backup, right?
some nas devices will allow multiple nics on the same network to increase throughput, but its really not about directly connecting 2 ethernet devices.
ok, I see. So network is fast enough. That works for me. The miniPC only has 500gb. So that is why I figure I need the extra storage. As for a backup, I figured I would have to raid it. The only other option I can think of would be to run a second NAS or something. And that seems like overkill.
if you do not have a copy of something in different place, you do not have a backup. raid != backup!, its for reliability (and sometimes speed).
i actually have the local copy, a nightly backup to the nas device, and set of offline drives i keep in a pelican case i refresh a few times per year as a secondary backup.
I thought there was a raid setting where it basically duplicated the data across the drives such that if any one of them fail it can recreate the data. That should at least cover the "local" backup part. For more important things like family videos and such I have external drives that are offline unless I am uploading new videos and such. But really I should have some kind of offsite backup for that kind of stuff.
yes, that is what raid is but that is not a backup. it is making that single logical drive of your data resilient to a single drive failure. if anything goes sideways and you lose 2 drives, you lose 100% of your data. and it does happen. think power supply failure spiking your drives or whatnot.
you dont have to take my word for it, it is well known and well advertised that raid is not a backup.
yeah, I am totally with you. For the media server, I just don't know how much money I want to put into backing it up. For the important stuff. I really wish I knew of an offsite backup that I felt like I could trust. But most business models' these days seem to be hinged on hoping nothing ever goes wrong... or just paying if it does.