Gigabit Home NAS?

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Hi,

The other day I noticed that numerous computers in my house need more
storage. Rather than add a new drive to each I decided to look into a
home NAS. First i thought about taking a old computer, installing
Linux... but then i remembered that i had read about a new breed of NAS
for homes (dLink, linksys...). Before i started shopping around i
decided a gigabit connection is a must, I'm not interested in
sacrificing hard drive access speed for this, I want to be able to use
it just like it's connected to my computer- no slow downs or
anything.

All the boxes I found that have gigabit connections come with more
storage space than I need, does anyone know of a cheap gigabit box that
comes without a hard drive (I'll put in my own)?

Thanks for the help,
Dan
21 answers Last reply
More about gigabit home
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Thanks for the quick response,

    In that case, what is the minimum parts (cou, ram...) you would
    recommend for a reliable, useable linux fileserver (with about 8
    connections max)


    Will Dormann wrote:
    > Dan Irwin wrote:
    > > Hi,
    > >
    > > The other day I noticed that numerous computers in my house need more
    > > storage. Rather than add a new drive to each I decided to look into a
    > > home NAS. First i thought about taking a old computer, installing
    > > Linux... but then i remembered that i had read about a new breed of NAS
    > > for homes (dLink, linksys...).
    >
    > If you have some parts already, then a homebrew NAS still might be the
    > way to go. You'll be able to use software RAID to protect against
    > drive failure, plus you can use the machine for other purposes, too.
    > This is the route I went.
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > -WD
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Dan Irwin wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > The other day I noticed that numerous computers in my house need more
    > storage. Rather than add a new drive to each I decided to look into a
    > home NAS. First i thought about taking a old computer, installing
    > Linux... but then i remembered that i had read about a new breed of NAS
    > for homes (dLink, linksys...).

    If you have some parts already, then a homebrew NAS still might be the
    way to go. You'll be able to use software RAID to protect against
    drive failure, plus you can use the machine for other purposes, too.
    This is the route I went.


    --
    -WD
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    > The other day I noticed that numerous computers in my house need more
    > storage. Rather than add a new drive to each I decided to look into a
    > home NAS. First i thought about taking a old computer, installing
    > Linux... but then i remembered that i had read about a new breed of NAS
    > for homes (dLink, linksys...). Before i started shopping around i
    > decided a gigabit connection is a must, I'm not interested in
    > sacrificing hard drive access speed for this, I want to be able to use
    > it just like it's connected to my computer- no slow downs or
    > anything.
    >
    > All the boxes I found that have gigabit connections come with more
    > storage space than I need, does anyone know of a cheap gigabit box that
    > comes without a hard drive (I'll put in my own)?

    All of the gigabit equiped NAS (Linksys, Buffalo) start at least at 600$.
    Is that cheap for you?
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    > In that case, what is the minimum parts (cou, ram...) you would
    > recommend for a reliable, useable linux fileserver (with about 8
    > connections max)

    8 what connections? Disks or connected client PCs?
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Dan Irwin wrote:
    > Thanks for the quick response,
    >
    > In that case, what is the minimum parts (cou, ram...) you would
    > recommend for a reliable, useable linux fileserver (with about 8
    > connections max)

    I have a K6-III 450 with 256MB RAM set up with 4 hard drives in RAID5
    configuration and gigabit ethernet.

    It works quite well, but is a bit underpowered to fully realize the full
    benefit of GigE. I'm pretty sure it's because the S1590S motherboard
    can't handle the heavy PCI traffic well.

    But it's stable, quiet, and doesn't seem to draw a whole lot of power.
    If you have a system with at least the above specs, it should work
    fine. Rather than a full-blown linux distro I chose Gentoo as I could
    leave it as stripped down as I wanted. (no X or other components that
    would be useless for a fileserver)

    If you have 8 machines simultaneously using the storage (actively
    performing some sort of read/write), then there may be some contention
    for the hard drives, especially with RAID5.


    --
    -WD
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    >All of the gigabit equiped NAS (Linksys, Buffalo) start at least at 600$. Is that cheap for you?

    Nope 600 way out of the range, olny a HS chool student trying to satify
    the needs of his house

    > 8 what connections? Disks or connected client PCs?

    8 PCs
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    I was hopeing for something that let me use ATA drives i already have;
    i have a 120gb drive sitting on my desk
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    > Nope 600 way out of the range, olny a HS chool student trying to satify
    > the needs of his house

    How much are you willing to spend and how much disk
    capactity do you need?
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Dan Irwin wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > The other day I noticed that numerous computers in my house need more
    > storage. Rather than add a new drive to each I decided to look into a
    > home NAS. First i thought about taking a old computer, installing
    > Linux... but then i remembered that i had read about a new breed of NAS
    > for homes (dLink, linksys...). Before i started shopping around i
    > decided a gigabit connection is a must, I'm not interested in
    > sacrificing hard drive access speed for this, I want to be able to use
    > it just like it's connected to my computer- no slow downs or
    > anything.
    >
    > All the boxes I found that have gigabit connections come with more
    > storage space than I need, does anyone know of a cheap gigabit box that
    > comes without a hard drive (I'll put in my own)?
    >
    > Thanks for the help,
    > Dan
    >

    Dan,

    Building your own will definitely be cheaper. A couple of expensive,
    off-the-sheld options are discussed in this article:

    http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1819356,00.asp

    I love the Infrant ReadyNAS, but it is just too darn expensive. The
    off-the-shelf systems seem to cost at least $1/MB or about $1000 for a
    terabyte of storage. (~$300 for 300GB)

    There is also a link in the article about building your own home server...

    I use an old P3-700 with integrated graphics for my server. Runs cool
    and quiet. I didn't go for RAID - just a Promise 4 port IDE card. I
    use imaging and mirroring software for backups of the server drives. I
    also used a PC because I had to run a Windows application that serves
    MP3s. You will get alot more flexibility out of a PC server.
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    > I was hopeing for something that let me use ATA drives i already have;
    > i have a 120gb drive sitting on my desk

    What kind of a drive (model#)?

    For a lowest cost, get used (but decent) PC, buy gigabit NIC
    and install Linux.
    It won't be optimal, but will be cheap and give you a chance to
    add another disk later.
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Get a used Intel 81X system with P3, under $100.

    The ATA ports have 2X 66MB/s or more, and they do not use the PCI bus. The
    only bottleneck will be the CPU, so use a good NIC.

    "Dan Irwin" <harryguy082589@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1117605351.441298.225180@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    >
    > Nope 600 way out of the range, olny a HS chool student trying to satify
    > the needs of his house
    >
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    > I love the Infrant ReadyNAS, but it is just too darn expensive. The
    > off-the-shelf systems seem to cost at least $1/MB or about $1000 for a
    > terabyte of storage. (~$300 for 300GB)

    Maxtor SSD ($340) in that article does not have gigabit.
    (OP wanted gigabit interface)
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Previously H <harryguy082589@gmail.com> wrote:
    > I was hopeing for something that let me use ATA drives i already have;
    > i have a 120gb drive sitting on my desk

    Use an older, reliable PC and Linux software-raid. This is cheaper
    than anything you can buy and will give you reasonable performance and
    (more important) control over what it actually does and the ability to
    replace/upgrade things like memory. As GbE cards you can use almost
    anything today, but don't expect miracles, 400-600MB/s is the
    practical upper limit on a PCI bus.

    Personally I tend twards Intel cards at the moment, having had some
    Broadcom based die on me recently.

    Arno
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    > ...As GbE cards you can use almost
    > anything today, but don't expect miracles, 400-600MB/s is the
    > practical upper limit on a PCI bus.

    I think you meant 400-600Mb/s (megabit per second).

    It might be even worse if a disk controller shares the same
    bus with gigabit NIC. I get 260-280Mb/s when reading from a
    single drive share over the gigabit ethernet.
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    > It might be even worse if a disk controller shares the same
    > bus with gigabit NIC. I get 260-280Mb/s when reading from a
    > single drive share over the gigabit ethernet.

    Even more interesting situation occurs when two clients read large
    files simultaneously from that share. For each client network throughput
    varies dramatically from 20-110Mb/s.

    You said that you have 8 client PCs? If all of them need to
    concurrently play movies from that share, you won't be happy
    with results. At least not from a cheap server.
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Previously Peter <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca> wrote:
    >> ...As GbE cards you can use almost
    >> anything today, but don't expect miracles, 400-600MB/s is the
    >> practical upper limit on a PCI bus.

    > I think you meant 400-600Mb/s (megabit per second).

    Opps, sorry. Yes, that was bit not Byte.

    > It might be even worse if a disk controller shares the same
    > bus with gigabit NIC. I get 260-280Mb/s when reading from a
    > single drive share over the gigabit ethernet.

    Indeed. My numbers are for TCP netperf and no disk load.

    Arno
  17. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Previously Peter <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca> wrote:
    >> I was hopeing for something that let me use ATA drives i already have;
    >> i have a 120gb drive sitting on my desk

    > What kind of a drive (model#)?

    > For a lowest cost, get used (but decent) PC, buy gigabit NIC
    > and install Linux.
    > It won't be optimal, but will be cheap and give you a chance to
    > add another disk later.

    Also with this approach you can change any component to suit
    your needs. You can even replace the whole machine and just throw
    the disk(s) into another one. Linux usually does not care much.

    Arno
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Eric Gisin wrote:
    > Get a used Intel 81X system with P3, under $100.
    >
    > The ATA ports have 2X 66MB/s or more, and they do not use the PCI bus. The
    > only bottleneck will be the CPU, so use a good NIC.
    >
    > "Dan Irwin" <harryguy082589@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:1117605351.441298.225180@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    >
    >>Nope 600 way out of the range, olny a HS chool student trying to satify
    >>the needs of his house
    >>

    If building a home server with only 100Mbit enet, would you be able to
    improve performance by using two PCI ethernet cards? If using a
    switched network, then it should work...depending on how the OS utilizes
    the cards.
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    If your useing 100mb ethernet card yes, but with gbit no, the problem
    is the pci bus
  20. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Peter wrote:
    >> ...As GbE cards you can use almost
    >> anything today, but don't expect miracles, 400-600MB/s is the
    >> practical upper limit on a PCI bus.
    >
    > I think you meant 400-600Mb/s (megabit per second).
    >
    > It might be even worse if a disk controller shares the same
    > bus with gigabit NIC. I get 260-280Mb/s when reading from a
    > single drive share over the gigabit ethernet.

    That's still 35 Mbyte/sec, reasonable for real world usage
    of a single drive. I.e. not a contrived sequential read benchmark
    ...and a considerable step up from the 12Meg/sec of a 100Mbps
    network.

    Whats the drive capable of when transferring between 2 local drives?

    --
    Mike
  21. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Previously No Spam <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
    > Eric Gisin wrote:
    >> Get a used Intel 81X system with P3, under $100.
    >>
    >> The ATA ports have 2X 66MB/s or more, and they do not use the PCI bus. The
    >> only bottleneck will be the CPU, so use a good NIC.
    >>
    >> "Dan Irwin" <harryguy082589@gmail.com> wrote in message
    >> news:1117605351.441298.225180@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    >>
    >>>Nope 600 way out of the range, olny a HS chool student trying to satify
    >>>the needs of his house
    >>>

    > If building a home server with only 100Mbit enet, would you be able to
    > improve performance by using two PCI ethernet cards? If using a
    > switched network, then it should work...depending on how the OS utilizes
    > the cards.

    Could be tricky to configure. Easiest would be two different LANs
    on IP layer on the cards and the clients on eithe rone, but not
    both.

    Arno
Ask a new question

Read More

NAS / RAID Storage