So my plan based on reading was to get a mini pc and a nas. But then I realized... what is the best way to connect them. So I started doing more reading. And I confused myself.

So a NAS has it's own CPU and such, and other computers can talk directly to it over the network. But if I am using a mini pc to run the server, then I assume I would want a really fast direct connection to the storage. So it seems like I would want the NAS to be on the network as well as directly connected to the mini PC. And of course the mini pc would need to be on the network as well. Stuff I saw about connecting them directly seemed to pretty much use the Ethernet ports and a crossover cable. So that would mean that both devices would have to have two Ethernet ports, right?

And the bonus question is, would it just be better for the NAS to really be a dumb DAS for the mini pc instead?

Edit to summarize: For having two devices, the consensus is that LAN is good enough (just make sure you have a decent switch between them). A few like doing it all on one device for a variety of reasons.

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

[–] SailorsLife@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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.

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] SailorsLife@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] SailorsLife@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] ShortN0te@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago

As for a backup, I figured I would have to raid it.

RAID is not a backup. Never ever consider having the data on a RAID to be backed up.