Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I need to store over 200TB of data (all types, biggest being video files) and be able to access it over a local network. The files will be accessed for editing or searches. I don't need versioning, but a setup that would keep me safe from harddrive failures would be nice.

Right now the content is on different harddrives, some external drives, some regular. I don't exclude the possibility of buying new/extra drives if necessary. If they will ever be exposed to the web, it wont be to the public, but just a couple of people.

I have no idea what to buy to make this happen. I see some NAS solutions over the internet like this but the storage is not enough, plus it doesn't seem to be scalable.

What do you recommend?


share|improve this question

If you want scalability, check out GlusterFS, it's a distributed file-system. If you create a storage cluster, GlusterFS can make it seem like a single file-system. It has support for software-based RAID 0 (striping) and 1 (mirroring).

share|improve this answer
This sounds good but before I get to that I'm more interested in the actual hardware config – Mecca Jun 29 '11 at 23:35

I do large scale FC SAN work and that sort of volume is nothing for most mid-level storage kit. Obviously it's not free and I do understand the instinct to cut costs/corners by just scaling up the free roll-your-own code such as FreeNAS etc. but it's the actual chassis and links that is likely to hold you back going that way.

Presumably you need this available 99.9%+ so you'll need due controllers/heads at least. Do you need file or block level access and if the latter from how many client machines over what protocols? What about speed, both bandwidth and overall IOPS? What about snap capabilities, replication, backup? Do you have a budget in mind? Or any preferred vendors/models.

share|improve this answer
My purpose is more basic. A couple of users (3-4) will access video/image files for editing. Macs and PCs. Right now I'm attaching one drive at a time to a regular enclosure. I just want them to browse the network instead of moving hardrives all the time :) Each file has around 25 GB and should be edited directly over the network, without being copied locally (if possible, have no idea). No need for replication and would consider backup a raid setup. I would not want to go over 1.5k (excluding drives) but I have no idea how close or far I am with that estimation. Can go over if needed. – Mecca Jun 29 '11 at 23:33
PS: file level access is probably what I need – Mecca Jun 29 '11 at 23:37
Ah, now we're definitely in my area! You're going to struggle for that budget to be honest. What editing application are they using right now and what file format/s? It'll probably be very slow over 1Gbps NAS protocols. The more I think about this the less I think you can do this for the budget in fact, adding a zero would be more like it actually. Maybe look at some of the super micro boxes but you'll need at least 2 disk controllers, probably more, plus external chassis etc. – Chopper3 Jun 29 '11 at 23:44
Just looked at supermicro, you're still talking many times your budget even for the most basic parts sorry. – Chopper3 Jun 29 '11 at 23:52

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.