Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="meq123" data-source="post: 497014" data-attributes="member: 66505">OK, so to throw my 2 cents into this ring...A couple of years ago, I tried the Linksys combined NAS/router (WRTSL54GS) using both native and 3rd party firmware, and was heartily underwhelmed by its performance, flexibility and reliability (it was always hanging and needing to be restarted).I then tried 'repurposing' an old PC (w/750MHz AMD CPU, and 100/1000Mb LAN card) and Ubuntu server edition.&nbsp; There was a bit of a learning curve, admittedly (I'm not an Linux guy), but the result was streets ahead of the Linksys in performance AND flexibility, allowing me to create all sorts of different shares (network folders) with different access permissions - some even nested.&nbsp; To give you and idea of performance, an average copy of a 4GB zip file ran at ~68 Mbits/sec (across my GigE LAN).&nbsp; This system has been running non-stop for at least 2 years without having to touch it once (no reboots etc).Recently (last week actually), using the trickle-down-hardware style of upgrading, I updated this server to a Core2 CPU/Motherboard (1.8GHz) with 1GB RAM and a (new) 750GB SATA HD (WD &quot;Green&quot;) and a cheap &quot;80Plus&quot; OCZ PSU (500W) running the latest Ubuntu version (9.04).&nbsp; Performance nearly doubled to ~113 Mbits/sec for the same 4GB file (I had both of these boxes running at the same time so could compare as sequential time trials).&nbsp; Oh and as far as power consumption, measured with a KillAWatt P3, the server idles at just under 40W and goes up to about 46W when a file xfer is taking place.&nbsp; (The old-hardware server ran at about 90/100 Watts idle/xfer.)&nbsp; These systems are headless so there's not monitor/keyboard to power or worry about - all control access is via PuTTY from my desktop.As a speed comparison, a local copy of that same 4GB file on my desktop PC ran at ~296 Mbits/sec across different disks, or at ~159 Mbits/sec across different folders on the same disk.In conclusion... NAS boxes are much simpler to get going, and may save a little power (though not that much I think), but you will almost certainly pay for it in performance unless you get a higher-end NAS, in which case you'll pay in $cost!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="meq123, post: 497014, member: 66505"] OK, so to throw my 2 cents into this ring... A couple of years ago, I tried the Linksys combined NAS/router (WRTSL54GS) using both native and 3rd party firmware, and was heartily underwhelmed by its performance, flexibility [I]and [/I]reliability (it was always hanging and needing to be restarted). I then tried 'repurposing' an old PC (w/750MHz AMD CPU, and 100/1000Mb LAN card) and Ubuntu server edition. There [I]was[/I] a bit of a learning curve, admittedly (I'm not an Linux guy), but the result was streets ahead of the Linksys in performance AND flexibility, allowing me to create all sorts of different shares (network folders) with different access permissions - some even nested. To give you and idea of performance, an average copy of a 4GB zip file ran at ~68 Mbits/sec (across my GigE LAN). This system has been running non-stop for at least 2 years without having to touch it once (no reboots etc). Recently (last week actually), using the trickle-down-hardware style of upgrading, I updated this server to a Core2 CPU/Motherboard (1.8GHz) with 1GB RAM and a (new) 750GB SATA HD (WD "Green") and a cheap "80Plus" OCZ PSU (500W) running the latest Ubuntu version (9.04). Performance nearly doubled to ~113 Mbits/sec for the same 4GB file (I had both of these boxes running at the same time so could compare as sequential time trials). Oh and as far as power consumption, measured with a KillAWatt P3, the server idles at just under 40W and goes up to about 46W when a file xfer is taking place. (The old-hardware server ran at about 90/100 Watts idle/xfer.) These systems are headless so there's not monitor/keyboard to power or worry about - all control access is via PuTTY from my desktop. As a speed comparison, a local copy of that same 4GB file on my desktop PC ran at ~296 Mbits/sec across different disks, or at ~159 Mbits/sec across different folders on the same disk. In conclusion... NAS boxes [I]are[/I] much simpler to get going, and may save a little power (though not that much I think), but you will almost certainly pay for it in performance unless you get a higher-end NAS, in which case you'll pay in $cost! [/QUOTE]

Verification