| |||||||||
![]() | ![]() |
![]() |
| Thread Tools |
![]() | #1 |
[M] Reviewer Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,003
![]() | ![]() The goal: I'm willing to build something to store data on once place. Easy accessible. Now all the data is spread over multiple disks in multiple pc's. The needs: - (trans)portable. Something that fits in backpack. - 1.5 to 2 Tb is more then enough. - accessible and readable for multiple OS (OSX; Linux and Windows) - Silent Extra info: - There won't be any life crucial info stored. So there won't be a need of super duper redundancy. If it's lost, it's redownloadable. - Multimedia functions, such as mediacenter like solutions would be nice, but also not the main goal. Solutions: 1. A real home solution NAS. conceptronic with two 1 TB disks. Total price is about 310 euro. ++ cheap ++ plug and play -- slow -- limited in options 2. A small pc, with 2 disks. That would cost: - 50 Small case - 85 Dual core atom based mobo - 20 2 gig DDR2 - 160 the two 1 Tb disks Total: 315 ++ Also cheap ++ Faster ++ I can add easy wifi ++ can also suit other purposes -- bigger -- more configuration work This can even be cheaper, when using single core atom and/or less memory. Another option is to make it more performant. Then I would choose: - 50 Small case - 135Fast G45 based board - 70 Intel E5200 Dual Core (But this one I already have) - 20 2 gig DDR2 - 160 the two 1 Tb disks -- Total Price: 435 ++ Very fast ++ I can add easy wifi ++ Lost of extra's possible, also use it as a PC / movie computer / ... -- more expensive -- a bit more power hungry (the 5200 idle is very economic) At first I would just install a Simple Windows XP, and an FTP server. What do you think ?
__________________ . |
![]() |
![]() | #2 |
Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 79,010
![]() | ![]() Conceptronic has you beat in size and portability and weight; a PC will be 2-3x bigger/heavier
__________________ ![]() |
![]() |
![]() | #3 |
[M] Reviewer Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,003
![]() | ![]() yes, but from what I've seen, it's utterly slow ![]() C'mon 3 Mb per sec....
__________________ . |
![]() |
![]() | #4 |
Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 79,010
![]() | ![]() uPNP was indexing all the files during that test... I've edited those results in the original thread ![]() current results are: single session FTP 3-4mb/s, up to 10 current session speed goes up to 18-22mb/s single session SAMBA (windows share): 12-13mb/s multiple sessions average speed remains pretty much the same these are READ speeds copying TO the RAID0 array is for both FTP/SAMBA 15mb/s+ granted that it's not 30-40mb/s as I see between two workstations on Gigabit, but for the price & portability, it's really sufficiently fast ![]()
__________________ ![]() Last edited by jmke : 15th February 2009 at 17:48. |
![]() |
![]() | #5 |
[M] Reviewer Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,003
![]() | ![]() when not using any raid. Is the performance better ?
__________________ . |
![]() |
![]() | #6 |
Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 79,010
![]() | ![]() I've read that JBOD vs RAID 0/1 the CPU load is lower, but performance remains the same. Writing speed is higher to the NAS single session wise; very weird. I send an email to Conceptronic to ask what's up. also FTP server has only very basic user access rights, not enough to satisfy my needs ![]()
__________________ ![]() Last edited by jmke : 15th February 2009 at 23:29. |
![]() |
![]() | #7 |
[M] Reviewer Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,003
![]() | ![]() Keep me updated ![]()
__________________ . |
![]() |
![]() | #8 |
[M] Reviewer Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,003
![]() | ![]() I didn't follow the advise here.... Got me a shuttle K45 barebone with a E2220 from intel. Together about 160 euro. As harddisks I have 2 Samsung Spinpoints 1 TB 32 Mb cache. Using a cross UTP cable, to anther PC (Samsung 750 gig) I get copy speeds of +/- 50 Mb / sec (with small files) and it goes up to 60 / 65 when copying big files. Eat that NAS of JMke ![]() It's bigger, but still transportable. It's faster. And price is about the same.
__________________ . |
![]() |
![]() | #9 | |
Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 79,010
![]() | ![]() you did follow your advice ![]() Quote:
![]() but I don't agree on transportability Shuttle: 280 (l) x 190(b) x 170(h) mm = 9044 cm³ NAS: 194 (l) x 102(b) x 137(h) mm = 2711 cm³ your Shuttle is 233% bigger. I can almost put the Conceptronic in pocket of my coat ![]() Have to admit though that performance kicks ***! what OS are you running on it? price wise you have mobo/case/cpu/ram/optical drive which will put in near/over €200 mark without HDDs, right? not too bad for €50 more. How many HDDs can you fit max?
__________________ ![]() Last edited by jmke : 21st February 2009 at 18:06. | |
![]() |
![]() | #10 |
Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 79,010
![]() | ![]() what's the power usage of the thing btw? here with 2xHDDs: 22W idle, 26W load hot running potato too it seems http://www.thetechlounge.com/article...ebones-System/ where did you buy it ?
__________________ ![]() Last edited by jmke : 21st February 2009 at 18:14. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Thecus Intros N4200 NAS with 6D Technology | jmke | WebNews | 0 | 1st March 2010 15:47 |
QNAP Unveils Intel Core 2 Duo, 8-bay, 16TB iSCSI NAS - TS-809 Pro | jmke | WebNews | 0 | 16th February 2009 12:25 |
QNAP Announces the World's First 4-Bay Intel Atom-based NAS - TS-439 Pro Turbo NAS | jmke | WebNews | 0 | 4th February 2009 16:31 |
QNAP TS-509 Pro Turbo NAS Released, Tested | jmke | WebNews | 0 | 21st November 2008 12:13 |
Bytecc LANDISK NAS Hard Drive Enclosure | Sidney | WebNews | 0 | 17th October 2005 05:27 |
Thread Tools | |
| |