Any thoughts?
I am planning to set up a spare Asus Z170 motherboard as a homebuilt NAS, my QNAP TS451+ is driving me round the bend as it is so slow to administer from the browser front end, I would much prefer direct access.
I have the option of Z170-K or Z170-P Asus board and am thinking of:
Linux Mint xfce as the OS, I use it on my home media server and can find my way round although the front end seems to change nearly as much as Windows. Installation drive will be an NVMe.
4 x 4 TB spinning drives (Iron Wolf) in RAID 6 using mdadm to give me about 7.5 TB usable and the ability to survive 2 x drive failures.
I have seen some suggestions on Google that using zfs on the RAID drives may be an issue in the event of failure as it is proprietary and it's better to use EXT4.
Any thoughts?
This is a major project for me as a lifelong Windows user but my Linux Mint home media server works so well I'd like to give it a try.
[...] my QNAP TS451+ is driving me round the bend as it is so slow to administer from the browser front end, I would much prefer direct access.
On Sun, 8/2/2026 5:37 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:My version of RAID is RAIN, Redundant Array of Independent NASs. Within
I am planning to set up a spare Asus Z170 motherboard as a homebuilt NAS, my QNAP TS451+ is driving me round the bend as it is so slow to administer from the browser front end, I would much prefer direct access.
I have the option of Z170-K or Z170-P Asus board and am thinking of:
Linux Mint xfce as the OS, I use it on my home media server and can find my way round although the front end seems to change nearly as much as Windows. Installation drive will be an NVMe.
4 x 4 TB spinning drives (Iron Wolf) in RAID 6 using mdadm to give me about 7.5 TB usable and the ability to survive 2 x drive failures.
I have seen some suggestions on Google that using zfs on the RAID drives may be an issue in the event of failure as it is proprietary and it's better to use EXT4.
Any thoughts?
This is a major project for me as a lifelong Windows user but my Linux Mint home media server works so well I'd like to give it a try.
The feedback we got from RAID 5 users was "I really regret using
the minimum number of disks". On RAID 5, these were people who used
three disks, one disk failed and... maintenance problems awaited them.
When this happened, none of these people reported back with
definitive info on what that problem was.
If the minimum is four drives for RAID 6, you should use more than that in your RAID 6.
[snip detail]
The feedback we got from RAID 5 users was "I really regret using the
minimum number of disks". On RAID 5, these were people who used
three disks, one disk failed and... maintenance problems awaited
them. When this happened, none of these people reported back with
definitive info on what that problem was.
I am planning to set up a spare Asus Z170 motherboard as a homebuilt
NAS, my QNAP TS451+ is driving me round the bend as it is so slow to administer from the browser front end, I would much prefer direct access.
I have the option of Z170-K or Z170-P Asus board and am thinking of:
Linux Mint xfce as the OS, I use it on my home media server and can find
my way round although the front end seems to change nearly as much as Windows. Installation drive will be an NVMe.
4 x 4 TB spinning drives (Iron Wolf) in RAID 6 using mdadm to give me
about 7.5 TB usable and the ability to survive 2 x drive failures.
I have seen some suggestions on Google that using zfs on the RAID drives
may be an issue in the event of failure as it is proprietary and it's
better to use EXT4.
If the minimum is four drives for RAID 6, you should use more than that in >>your RAID 6.My version of RAID is RAIN, Redundant Array of Independent NASs. Within >each NAS I use JBOD to max out the storage, and a backup NAS syncs with
[snip detail]
the main NAS every night. Although this is more expensive, I believe it's >more reliable, and I find it much easier to manage in that it avoids the >sort of complications that you detail but that largely I've snipped in the >interests of brevity
I have seen some suggestions on Google that using zfs on the RAID drives >>may be an issue in the event of failure as it is proprietary and it's >>better to use EXT4.
zfs is open-source, it has advantages that ext4 never will have, just no >matter which filesystem you end up with, do regular backups of the data
you don't can't afford to loose.
RAID will only save your ass when a drive breaks down, but will not fix
data corruption or ms-windows client that runs malware that encrypts files.
When upgrading all the drivers will be working, specially when you
use zfs as the driver is outside the kernel. If you use a normal distribution, the kernel may be updated to a version which isn't
compatible with the zfs driver and then you will fail to access your
zfs. The NAS specific distributions will never have this issue as
they see to that all will keep on working before release.
zfs is open-source, it has advantages that ext4 never will have ...
On Mon, 3 Aug 2026 08:18:28 +0200, J.O. Aho wrote:
When upgrading all the drivers will be working, specially when you
use zfs as the driver is outside the kernel. If you use a normal >>distribution, the kernel may be updated to a version which isn't
compatible with the zfs driver and then you will fail to access your
zfs. The NAS specific distributions will never have this issue as
they see to that all will keep on working before release.
Or just avoid ZFS.
zfs is open-source, it has advantages that ext4 never will have ...
Linus Torvalds is not impressed with it.
<https://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=189711&curpostid=189959>
On 03/08/2026 in message <114ol4b$sv72$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
If the minimum is four drives for RAID 6, you should use more thanMy version of RAID is RAIN, Redundant Array of Independent NASs.
that in your RAID 6.
[snip detail]
Within each NAS I use JBOD to max out the storage, and a backup NAS
syncs with the main NAS every night.-a Although this is more expensive,
I believe it's more reliable, and I find it much easier to manage in
that it avoids the sort of complications that you detail but that
largely I've snipped in the interests of brevity
How long has it been running? I used SSDs in my NAS (various makes) and
had 3 fail, perhaps due to constant writes?
zfs is open-source, it has advantages that ext4 never will have, just no matter which filesystem you end up with, do regular backups of the data
you don't can't afford to loose.
How long has it been running? I used SSDs in my NAS (various makes) and >>had 3 fail, perhaps due to constant writes?
Either the SSDs were bad quality, or the thing writes an awful amount of >data. Or it is something else, like heat. You could try connecting the
SSDs somewhere and use SMART on it to find out.
On 03/08/2026 in message <114ol4b$sv72$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
My version of RAID is RAIN, Redundant Array of Independent NASs.
Within each NAS I use JBOD to max out the storage, and a backup NAS
syncs with the main NAS every night.-a Although this is more expensive,
I believe it's more reliable, and I find it much easier to manage in
that it avoids the sort of complications that you detail but that
largely I've snipped in the interests of brevity
How long has it been running? I used SSDs in my NAS (various makes) and
had 3 fail, perhaps due to constant writes?
On 02/08/2026 23.37, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I am planning to set up a spare Asus Z170 motherboard as a homebuilt
NAS, my QNAP TS451+ is driving me round the bend as it is so slow to
administer from the browser front end, I would much prefer direct access.
I have the option of Z170-K or Z170-P Asus board and am thinking of:
Linux Mint xfce as the OS, I use it on my home media server and can
find my way round although the front end seems to change nearly as
much as Windows. Installation drive will be an NVMe.
If you are going to use it as NAS I would recommend to use a NAS
specific distribution as TrueNAS/UnRAID. When upgrading all the drivers
will be working, specially when you use zfs as the driver is outside the kernel. If you use a normal distribution, the kernel may be updated to a version which isn't compatible with the zfs driver and then you will
fail to access your zfs. The NAS specific distributions will never have
this issue as they see to that all will keep on working before release.
On 2026-08-03 08:18, J.O. Aho wrote:
zfs is open-source, it has advantages that ext4 never will have, just
no matter which filesystem you end up with, do regular backups of the
data you don't can't afford to loose.
I read that ZFS requires lots of ram and cpu.
My raid6 setup uses XFS. I tried btrfs and it corrupted.
On Mon, 3 Aug 2026 12:07:34 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2026-08-03 08:18, J.O. Aho wrote:
zfs is open-source, it has advantages that ext4 never will have, just
no matter which filesystem you end up with, do regular backups of the
data you don't can't afford to loose.
I read that ZFS requires lots of ram and cpu.
My raid6 setup uses XFS. I tried btrfs and it corrupted.
btrfs isn't recommended for RAID 6, which the OP want's to use.
I read that ZFS requires lots of ram and cpu.
On Mon, 3 Aug 2026 08:18:28 +0200, J.O. Aho wrote:
Linus Torvalds is not impressed with it.
<https://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=189711&curpostid=189959>
On 2026-08-03 08:18, J.O. Aho wrote:
zfs is open-source, it has advantages that ext4 never will have, just
no matter which filesystem you end up with, do regular backups of the
data you don't can't afford to loose.
I read that ZFS requires lots of ram and cpu.
My raid6 setup uses XFS. I tried btrfs and it corrupted.
On 03/08/2026 10.11, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 3 Aug 2026 08:18:28 +0200, J.O. Aho wrote:
Linus Torvalds is not impressed with [ZFS].
<https://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=189711&curpostid=189959>
It's not easy to impress him, it's more likely you get to see his
middle finger ;)
The interesting thing about ZFS is that Oracle itself will not offer
it. If you buy their rCLUnbreakable LinuxrCY, you will get the option of btrfs, but not ZFS.
DonrCOt they have any confidence in the quality of their own product?
On 05/08/2026 00.45, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
The interesting thing about ZFS is that Oracle itself will not
offer it. If you buy their rCLUnbreakable LinuxrCY, you will get the
option of btrfs, but not ZFS.
It's the CDDL-licens that ZFS was released under and which then the
fork OpenZFS has been released under, it's not compatible with GPL
according to Free Software Foundation and I think this is what keeps
it out of the Linux source.
DonrCOt they have any confidence in the quality of their own product?
OpenZFS has nothing to do with Oracle (or any future Solaris source
code owner), those I don't think they want the extra work to
maintain it for the unbreakable linux, better to go with something
already in the kernel.
On Wed, 5 Aug 2026 08:45:48 +0200, J.O. Aho wrote:
On 05/08/2026 00.45, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
The interesting thing about ZFS is that Oracle itself will not
offer it. If you buy their rCLUnbreakable LinuxrCY, you will get the
option of btrfs, but not ZFS.
It's the CDDL-licens that ZFS was released under and which then the
fork OpenZFS has been released under, it's not compatible with GPL
according to Free Software Foundation and I think this is what keeps
it out of the Linux source.
But Oracle *own* the copyright on it, regardless. They are free to do whatever they want with it. They could offer it with their Linux, but
they canrCOt, or wonrCOt. Why not?
But Oracle *own* the copyright on it, regardless. They are free to do whatever they want with it. They could offer it with their Linux, but
they canrCOt, or wonrCOt. Why not?
But Oracle *own* the copyright on it, regardless. They are free to do whatever they want with it.
They could offer it with their Linux, but they canrCOt, or wonrCOt. Why not?
They have the original ZFS; if OpenZFS is an inferior substitute, they
can offer the Genuine Originalrao, and market it as such. Why donrCOt
they?
Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
But Oracle *own* the copyright on it, regardless. They are free to
do whatever they want with it. They could offer it with their
Linux, but they canrCOt, or wonrCOt. Why not?
I thought the Boracle Linux or whatever is just a rebadged RHEL? So
since Red Hat doesn't provide ZFS, Oracle doesn't either.
On Wed, 05 Aug 2026 12:09:41 +0300, Anssi Saari wrote:Only if they were interested in. And it looks like they aren't.
Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
But Oracle *own* the copyright on it, regardless. They are free to
do whatever they want with it. They could offer it with their
Linux, but they canrCOt, or wonrCOt. Why not?
I thought the Boracle Linux or whatever is just a rebadged RHEL? So
since Red Hat doesn't provide ZFS, Oracle doesn't either.
DonrCOt they want to offer a competitive advantage? I.e. rCLeverything
that Red Hat gives you, plus thisrCY? ZFS would be an obvious
competitive advantage -- assuming that customers saw it as valuable.
WouldnrCOt they?
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (1 / 5) |
| Uptime: | 51:10:59 |
| Calls: | 1,101 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 276,012 |