NAS appliances?
Bookmark this page:
 Yahoo!
 Google
 Windows Live
 del.icio.us
 digg
 Netscape
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by on June 23, 2008, 11:22 am
Please log in for more thread options LaCie devices in the past and their reliability has been truly shocking. Capacity is relatively unimportant - 300Gb will be fine. Would like NFS support, though since a couple of my machines run Linux and a native Linux filesystem (ext2 or ext3) would be beneficial to support some of Linix's more oddball filesystem capabilities - pipes, links etc. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Stephen Howard on June 23, 2008, 12:43 pm
Please log in for more thread options If you fancy the DIY approach you could do worse than have a look at FreeNas: http://www.freenas.org/ Regards, -- Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations www.shwoodwind.co.uk Emails to: showardshwoodwindcouk | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Andrew Smallshaw on June 23, 2008, 3:26 pm
Please log in for more thread options
> Does anyone have any recommendations for NAS devices? I've tried some
> LaCie devices in the past and their reliability has been truly > shocking. Capacity is relatively unimportant - 300Gb will be fine. > Would like NFS support, though since a couple of my machines run Linux > and a native Linux filesystem (ext2 or ext3) would be beneficial to > support some of Linix's more oddball filesystem capabilities - pipes, > links etc. If anyone had any experiences of decent consumer-level NAS appliances then I'm certainly interested to hear about them. In the absence of any such information I'm forced to agree with Stephen - a minimal PC setup running whatever is the better option. In my experience the low-end consumer units are uniformly crap. I've heard persistent stories concerning consumer LaCie units and poor reliability, and my experience with WD drives has also been poor. They don't break down but even with gigabit ethernet you'll get 3.5MB/s data rates, and any attempt to transfer files larger than about 3GB or so will _never_ work without aborting halfway through. What I've seen of the others doesn't exactly inspire confidence either. FWIW Buffalo _seem_ to be slightly better than the rest but that is just first impressions, I haven't looked at them in detail. Things get better with the commercially orientated units starting around £5-600 but for that money a home user is probably better off with a simple machine for the task running approriate software. Use a Shuttle or Mini-ITX system is size and/or noise is a consideration. I have just such a set up here and it works a treat, with the added advantage it runs my Amanda server as well and so keeps extra traffic off the network. There's also plenty of scope for other servers as well, basically no limits as it has most of the capability of a general purpose PC. Look into pipes on NFS though - basically they don't work. Depending on the NFS implementation on the client machine, you _may_ get a local loopback to a process running on the same machine. What you don't get is pipe data transferred over the network. -- Andrew Smallshaw andrews@sdf.lonestar.org | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Stephen Howard on June 23, 2008, 5:54 pm
Please log in for more thread options On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 21:26:28 +0200 (CEST), Andrew Smallshaw
<snip>
>Things get better with the commercially orientated units starting >around £5-600 but for that money a home user is probably better >off with a simple machine for the task running approriate software. >Use a Shuttle or Mini-ITX system is size and/or noise is a >consideration. I have just such a set up here and it works a treat, >with the added advantage it runs my Amanda server as well and so >keeps extra traffic off the network. There's also plenty of scope >for other servers as well, basically no limits as it has most of >the capability of a general purpose PC. For simple file sharing ( mp3s, jpgs, etc ) and storage, is there any reason to eschew an old W2000 or XP box? I could set up a Freenas box, but it would be relatively new territory for me...whereas I can knock up a tweaked W2000 box in a fraction of the time. Regards, -- Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations www.shwoodwind.co.uk Emails to: showardshwoodwindcouk | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by John McGaw on June 23, 2008, 5:31 pm
Please log in for more thread options Stephen Howard wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 21:26:28 +0200 (CEST), Andrew Smallshaw
> > <snip> >> Things get better with the commercially orientated units starting
>> around £5-600 but for that money a home user is probably better >> off with a simple machine for the task running approriate software. >> Use a Shuttle or Mini-ITX system is size and/or noise is a >> consideration. I have just such a set up here and it works a treat, >> with the added advantage it runs my Amanda server as well and so >> keeps extra traffic off the network. There's also plenty of scope >> for other servers as well, basically no limits as it has most of >> the capability of a general purpose PC. >
I find that my W2K machine built from many junk box parts serves up files
> For simple file sharing ( mp3s, jpgs, etc ) and storage, is there any > reason to eschew an old W2000 or XP box? > I could set up a Freenas box, but it would be relatively new territory > for me...whereas I can knock up a tweaked W2000 box in a fraction of > the time. > > Regards, > > > very nicely. I believe that I sunk no more than $150 into it in the form of a new Antec case/ps, gigabit network card, a bit more memory, and an additional IDE controller. The junk box contributed the old dual P3 MB, five 400gB drives, an 80gB drive for the system drive, (that's an entire other story as to why I had 2tB+ in the junk box) video card, monitor, cables, OS, UPS, and such. It works quite smoothly and I suspect that almost any sort of system would serve up files and stream media adequately. -- John McGaw [Knoxville, TN, USA] http://johnmcgaw.com | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Similar Threads | Posted |
| NAS appliances? | June 23, 2008, 11:22 am |
>LaCie devices in the past and their reliability has been truly
>shocking. Capacity is relatively unimportant - 300Gb will be fine.
>Would like NFS support, though since a couple of my machines run Linux
>and a native Linux filesystem (ext2 or ext3) would be beneficial to
>support some of Linix's more oddball filesystem capabilities - pipes,
>links etc.