[Comp] NAS Superthread (current deals on NAS devices)

[alanbrenton]

Scroll up and check out the demo on the QNAP website. The software can do more than just running a bit torrent server.

QNAP still has better power consumption.

Dlink:
Power Mgt. Mode - 8 Watts
Idle -19 Watts
RAID 1 Test - 21-23 Watts

QNAP (212)
Sleep Mode - 6 Watts
In operation -19 Watts (Transferring)
PC Server - 350 Watts (This is not the same as transferring. This is an advanced mode, you will never use this.)

Best RAID mode is Raid 5 but the down side is you have to give up 1 disk out of the entire cluster. So this is good for 4+ disk cluster. For a two disk operation:

JBOD: Don't EVER do this. If you want to get raped gently, or if your mom dropped you on your head and said "You are destined to do fail in all things computer!" this is the mode you will put your 2 disk cluster in. If one disk goes you are done. Kappesh!
RAID 0: Stripping. You basically keep adding disks to the cluster so your 2x2TB hard disks would become one giant 4TB hard drive. Your data will be stripped over both disks. Only advantage this has is the performance goes up with the amount of disks you have in the cluster at the cost of the same risk as JBOD. One disk goes... they all go.
RAID 1: Mirroring. This is the safest. As the name suggests Disk 1 mirrors Disk 2 so if anyone of the two disk fails the other one has a copy of it.

A total newbie here. Does this mean I can split the hdd up into several clusters so I can get to Raid 5 (hypothetically) as I will only be purchasing a 2-bay NAS?

Also, in terms of future upgrades using expansion bays, does having three 2-bay NAS not equate to having a 6-bay NAS (hypothetically) in terms of backing up (or performance)? TIA.

[lead]

how does this compare to dlink-323 (might remembered the model wrong) which goes for $99?

well the 323 is like 7 years old or more and is discontinued eol.

say now in the sub 200

The 320 and 325 and the synology and the qnap and the nergear etc currently now in the 2 bay towers all use anywhere from 800mhz upto 1.5 ghz of ther marvel chipset, with variations in the memory size. The faster the cpu, more ram= faster throughput. Also embedding the network controller slows things down, separate network controllers speeds things up etc. Software/file format etc, does effect performance. ext2-et3-ext4 in relation to raw speed are in that order. In order of efficency and stability flip it. Usb ports more or less or even esata etc effect price.

Synology and qnap offer the best support with great hardware combinations. So which ever is cheaper is the best choice. The dlink 325 doesn't offer the equivalent support for similar hardware. But the dlink 320 which has been on sale for 80 bucks is hard to beat bang for buck 2 bay simple file sharing nas. I bought 2 for 4 bays for 160, with one mirroring the other allowing for virtually no data loss or down time.

Research your needs and wants first.

lets look at this one the thecus established nas company and this plus version doesn't use the established marvel chipset. Originally it was single core with originally transfer rates around a dns 323, even with a Cavium ECONA CNS3420 SOC 600MH 600 mhz cpu, supposeably has improved alittle with each new firmware. But Now a new firmware unlocks the 2nd core and its dual core with over twice the reported previous transfer rate with no increase in power consumption. Never used it myself but 130 for a dual core sounds not bad, transfer rates from review with added double ethernet ports appear nice.

http://www.ncix.com/products/index.p...h&promoid=1065

small review
http://www.legitreviews.com/news/11250/

if at all possible check out the forums. Still seems like wip
http://forum.thecus.com/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=2821

[craeyon]

A total newbie here. Does this mean I can split the hdd up into several clusters so I can get to Raid 5 (hypothetically) as I will only be purchasing a 2-bay NAS?

No unfortunately, RAID levels work on hardware level. UNLESS someone has invented a software bypass to partition the hard drive into several clusters and make your 2 disks look like 4 disks to the NAS. But if you did achieve this the whole point of having a RAID 5 disk fail safe is pretty much gone. Unfortunately, with two disk clusters you have very little option.

[alanbrenton]

The 320 and 325 and the synology and the qnap and the nergear etc currently now in the 2 bay towers all use anywhere from 800mhz upto 1.5 ghz of ther marvel chipset, with variations in the memory size. The faster the cpu, more ram= faster throughput. Also embedding the network controller slows things, down separate network controllers speeds things up etc. Software/file format etc, does effect performance. ext2-et3-ext4 in relation to raw speed are in that order. In order of efficency and stability flip it. Usb ports more or less or even esata etc effect price.

Synology and qnap offer the best support with great hardware combinations. So which ever is cheaper is the best choice. The dlink 325 doesn't offer the equivalent support for similar hardware. But the dlink 320 which has been on sale for 80 bucks is hard to beat bang for buck 2 bay simple file sharing nas. I bought 2 for 4 bays for 160, with one mirroring the other allowing for virtually no data loss or down time.

.

EXT4 is fastest? Good to know one can use two NAS or more to mirror each other.

[craeyon]

Also, in terms of future upgrades using expansion bays, does having three 2-bay NAS not equate to having a 6-bay NAS (hypothetically) in terms of backing up (or performance)? TIA.

It is the same thing as long as the NAS supports this via USB or Ethernet. Although if you are planning it would be cheaper to do a 6 bay built in to begin with rather than buying 3 separate NASes and wiring them together. I can't comment on the efficiency though.

[Melmo]

The DLink is reported to have 13MB/s writes and 22MB/s reads which would be terrible for doing things like streaming 1080p movies to your Western Digital box. The QNAP has 33MB/s writes and 69MB/s which is stupid fast.

I think you're confusing MB/s and Mb/s. The DLink with 22MB/s reads can stream 1080p just fine. In fact it should be able to stream about 3 full bluray streams at the same time, if it can maintain that 22MB/s.

[Jest3rr]

If only HDD prices were at pre-flood prices, I would be all over this.

[craeyon]

I think you're confusing MB/s and Mb/s. The DLink with 22MB/s reads can stream 1080p just fine. In fact it should be able to stream about 3 full bluray streams at the same time, if it can maintain that 22MB/s.

You are thinking 720p which is around 4 to 8 MB/s. I was talking about 1080p files which are on average 20 MB/s without burst. I am also going by what people are saying about the Dlink 323 and 1080p video streaming is an issue with this unit. I don't know maybe you are having luck?

Edit just for clarification. The 20MB/s is for AVC codec whereas the MKV which is x.264 codec is around 10 - 12 MB/s for 1080p video. On paper it makes sense but I don't know why people are having problems streaming that on Dlink 323. It has to be the low 64MB ram and 500Mhz processor.

[ihatebell]

Dlink NAS has got nothing on QNAP. Not only is the software management is robust but the hardware surpasses by a mile.

The QNAP is running a faster Marvel processor 1.2 GHZ vs 500Hz of the Dlink. QNAP has more ram 256 Mb vs 64 MB. This means your transfer and read rates are going to be much higher. The DLink is reported to have 13MB/s writes and 22MB/s reads which would be terrible for doing things like streaming 1080p movies to your Western Digital box. The QNAP has 33MB/s writes and 69MB/s which is stupid fast. QNAP also has support multiple RAID modes, DLink only does till RAID 0 and 1 and JBOD. QNAP is just a better machine.

EDIT: Sorry I just compared the TS-412 Turbo. Here are the specs for the TS-212 which is still faster than the Dlink 323. http://www.qnap.com/images/products/...n_2BayNAS.html

OK, so let's be reasonable here. First, DNS-323 is the older brother of the DNS-320, which has an 800MHz processor and 128 MB of RAM. My DNS320 cost $79 as well, and does 25-30 MB/s write and 40 MB/s read. If you're gonna make comparisons between systems, at least choose up-to-date systems, and include cost in your analysis. What would you need 33 MB/s write and 69 MB/s read vs. 25 MB/s write and 40 MB/s for? For the price difference, the DNS320 is a pretty good choice. Granted, it's not $79 now but it can still easily be had for $90-$100.

[glalonde]

Best solution I found was the WD MyBookLive, $159 with 2TB drive. 2TB drive cost just about $159 so the NAS was free for the most part.
Moving my data to it now, write about 48MB/sec.
Also I use it for Time Machine backup on my MacBook Air.

Has a few minor issues, but I will write about those later.


Glen.
www.binarysearchtree.com

[dazbud]

No problems streaming two 1080p streams from DNS323. Never had any issues with it either.

[craeyon]

OK, so let's be reasonable here. First, DNS-323 is the older brother of the DNS-320, which has an 800MHz processor and 128 MB of RAM. My DNS320 cost $79 as well, and does 25-30 MB/s write and 40 MB/s read. If you're gonna make comparisons between systems, at least choose up-to-date systems, and include cost in your analysis. What would you need 33 MB/s write and 69 MB/s read vs. 25 MB/s write and 40 MB/s for? For the price difference, the DNS320 is a pretty good choice. Granted, it's not $79 now but it can still easily be had for $90-$100.

Easy there tiger. Someone asked me to compare it so I did. Some people.. seriously. Also what would I need 69MB/s for? I recently had to transfer 3 TB of data over the network. 40 MB/s would've taken 25 Hours whereas my and at 70MB/s took about 14 Hours. Kind of important for me. I don't know about the dude who asked me the question though. Different people different needs.

No problems streaming two 1080p streams from DNS323. Never had any issues with it either.

Thank you for confirming/clarification. The numbers/pecs on paper and user reviews were contradicting.

[cool canuck]

I'm also a satisfied user of the Dlink DNS-323. The only downside being it only supports up to 2x2TB drives (apparently there is a beta firmware out that does 3TB), whereas the newer DNS-320 supports 3TB drives. It's mostly for photo/video storage so speeds are of less concern.

[craeyon]

Just a quick tip for everyone here. Before buying your NAS please PLEASE PLEEEEASE for the love of everything HOLY check your hard drive compatibility. Just because it is an NAS doesn't mean it is able to support every hard drive in the world.

[jmacd27]

Just a quick tip for everyone here. Before buying your NAS please PLEASE PLEEEEASE for the love of everything HOLY check your hard drive compatibility. Just because it is an NAS doesn't mean it is able to support every hard drive in the world.

Yes, especially if you're using "green" drives. Some makes don't play well in a raid environment. The disks keep trying to spin down which is a problem when multiple drives are linked to each other.