Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Networked Storage (NAS) Charts

Tags:
  • Article Discussion
  • Reviews
  • NAS / RAID
  • Storage
  • Product
Last response: in Toms Network
Share
July 19, 2006 12:33:58 PM

We've gathered throughput data from our many NAS reviews for easy comparison. What do you think?

More about : networked storage nas charts

July 19, 2006 7:19:00 PM

I'm surprised to not see the Linksys NSLU2 anywhere in the listings? You did so many articles about hacking it, I thought you'd keep it in the NAS groupings.
July 19, 2006 8:12:16 PM

I wondered if anyone would notice! :) 

Didn't add it because the data is pretty old and didn't test above 128MB file size.

I'll get it set up again soon, rerun the data and add it.

The relevant datapoints I have are for 64 MB file size (64 KB record size):
- 5.1 MB/sec write
- 4.2 MB/sec read
Related resources
July 19, 2006 8:20:18 PM

Tim,
After re-collecting the data, would you be willing to remove the 133 MHz CPU clock limitation of the NSLU2 so the CPU can run at 266 MHz and then collect data again?

The reason I ask, is because the NSLU2 is now being sold with the CPU clock at 266 MHz. I would be nice to document a comparison of perfomance.

Thanks for considering my inquiry!
July 20, 2006 12:54:15 AM

Will you add the ReadyNAS 1000S?

Will you add some Jumboframe for GB?

Good job anyway...:D 
July 20, 2006 6:44:53 AM

:D  Thanks a ton for putting this analysis together, I've been jonezing for 1TB of consumer-grade NAS and haven't found anything really for under 1K worth buying. At this point I'm thinking that buying a bunch of cheap SATA drives, chaining them together with a pre-owned server, and using xcopy for backup from one disk to the other is going to be the best/cheapest way to simulate NAS and RAID in my home network. If anyone has other thoughts, I'd love to hear them.
July 20, 2006 1:26:39 PM

Quote:
:D  Thanks a ton for putting this analysis together, I've been jonezing for 1TB of consumer-grade NAS and haven't found anything really for under 1K worth buying....

You'll be interested in an article coming up next week, then.
July 20, 2006 1:35:46 PM

Quote:
Will you add the ReadyNAS 1000S?

Probably not anytime soon

Quote:
Will you add some Jumboframe for GB?

I have data for gigabit and Jumbo frames, but not for many products. The jumbo frame data tends to be for RAID 5 configurations, which need a chart of their own.

I will add both the jumbo frame and RAID 5 charts when more products are added. Meanwhile, check the reviews for the products themselves and you'll find jumbo frame data.
July 20, 2006 1:36:40 PM

Quote:
Tim,
After re-collecting the data, would you be willing to remove the 133 MHz CPU clock limitation of the NSLU2 so the CPU can run at 266 MHz and then collect data again?

I can do this if the clock limitation is removed by newer firmware. Is it?
July 20, 2006 2:49:45 PM

A lot of these performance numbers are ridiculously bad. Specifically, a gigabit-equipped NAS should give at least 20 MB/s both read and write to justify its gigabit capability. I use a Linux machine at home as a file server, and can write to it at 35 MB/s and read at 28 MB/s.

I also have a Kuro-Box at home, a Linux-based BYOD gigabit NAS from Buffalo. Having played with its configuration for a while, I came to the conclusion that its rather poor stock performance (about 5 MB/s read/write if I remember correctly) was due to the TCP send and receive buffers being set far too small. After adjusting them, I got about 12 MB/s both read and write. At this point, transfers are more than likely limited by the slow (266 MHz, I think) processor. I'd venture to guess that all these gigabit NAS products which turn out less than 100 Mbps are limited by one of these two issues.

Having experienced transfer rates consistently over 20 MB/s between my gigabit-connected Windows machines, I soon abandoned the Kuro-Box in favor of a full file server. When it comes to performance (and I move a lot of very large files around), there's no comparison.

Cheers.
July 20, 2006 6:05:01 PM

Any idea if/when you might review the Thecus N5200 and do some comparisons with the ReadyNAS NV? I'm looking now at a solution and really like the ReadyNAS NV but as always want more performance.

Here is a link I found but it doesn't do many performance tests or comparisons.

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=6181&page=1

BTW, I love the consolidated charts.
July 20, 2006 6:39:22 PM

Tim,
Quote:
I can do this if the clock limitation is removed by newer firmware. Is it?


Nope, it's done in hardware. All you have to do is remove a resistor. You can find info in the UnSlung community HERE.

I've been running an NSLU2 without this resistor now for 9 months, not a single problem. Hopefully this is something you'll venture to try.
July 21, 2006 10:10:52 PM

Quote:
Any idea if/when you might review the Thecus N5200 and do some comparisons with the ReadyNAS NV? ...

What's the word??
July 22, 2006 2:58:53 PM

Quote:
Any idea if/when you might review the Thecus N5200 and do some comparisons with the ReadyNAS NV? ...

What's the word??
Considering it, but no definite plans at this time.
July 25, 2006 4:06:13 PM

Any plans on reviewing the Newisys NA-1400? Also, do you have any noise and or power measurements for your reviews. Not looking to hide my NAS in the basement?
July 26, 2006 2:56:49 PM

As this market drives me nuts sometimes ... trying to figure out who actually makes the original device ... do you test the:

Newisys NA-1400

or the

Hammer Storage NA-1400?
July 27, 2006 8:19:03 PM

Why not setup a few DIY NAS boxes with different configurations and test those. I have NASLite 2 one on a P2 450MHz with 384 MB, 4 120GB drives in a stripe and a GB Ethernet card. It was much cheaper and is faster than off the shelf models.
July 27, 2006 8:51:15 PM

Quote:
Why not setup a few DIY NAS boxes with different configurations and test those. I have NASLite 2 one on a P2 450MHz with 384 MB, 4 120GB drives in a stripe and a GB Ethernet card. It was much cheaper and is faster than most of these off the shelf models.

Coming soon...
July 27, 2006 9:04:57 PM

Sweet can't wait to see what you decide to do with it. 8)

Maybe even a FreeNAS article. FreeNas is based on M0n0wall. I have not tried it but it sounds nice, but it has features I'm not needing at this point.
August 1, 2006 4:40:37 PM

Hey all-

I've been reading Tom's Hardware since day way back in 96, and I now I'm looking at the NAS scene, and I thought I would share my input--I myself am leaning towards acquiring an NAS BYOD box for a few reasons which I will divulge shortly, but this is after a few months of research comparing a BYOD box, and using one of my old Athlon 800 Box as a multi-Terabyte file server, what I've found is the following...for ruling against using a full blown PC as a file server


You may or may not save money by using an older computer as a file server--everyone needs are different, but for the sake of this discussion, I'm going to limit it to mass (and I mean mass) storage. What I want is a 4 drive solution; with the only limiting factor is cost.

So, I'll start with the 2TB 4 drive solution-

Specs of my old econo-box

Inwin Mid-tower
Powermax 300 watt PSU
Asus A7V133
AMD Athlon 800
Kingston ValueRAM KVR133X64C3/256
Maxtor 40GB, EIDE
Win2k Pro
Panasonic DVD/CDRW


All prices by Newegg.com


Upgrades to 2TB Fileserver
=================================================

Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3500630AS 500GB
N82E16822148136
4 x $290

SUPERMICRO CSE-M34T 4 Bay Hot-Swapable SATA HDD
N82E16817121402
$110

Antec NeoPower NeoHE 550 ATX12V 550W Power Supply - Retail
N82E16817103941
$115

PROMISE FastTrak TX4310 PCI SATA II Controller Card RAID 0/1/5/10 JBOD - Retail
N82E16816102080
$150

Kingston ValueRAM KVR133X64C3/256
N82E16820136009
$35

Thermaltake Smart Case Fan Series A1357 80mm
N82E16835999111
2 x $8

Intel PWLA8391GT 10/100/1000Mbps PCI Network Adapter - OEM
N82E16833106121
$29


Total cost of upgrades--> $1615

=================================================

Now to look at a BYOD NAS box

Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3500630AS 500GB
N82E16822148136
4 x $290

Synology CS-406 Network Storage RJ-45, USB 2.0 - Retail
N82E16822108001
$640


Infrant ReadyNAS RN600-DLS Network Storage - Retail
N82E16822329001
$570

Cost
$1730-1800

=================================================

Price of 2TB NAS Boxes

BUFFALO HD-H2.0TGL/R5 2TB Network Attached Storage - Retail
N82E16822165013
$1650

Infrant RN600-2000 2TB Ready NAS 600 Network Storage - Retail
N82E16833329008
$1750

=================================================

So, with this data presented, with today's prices (08.01.2006) that you save up to 10 percent if you decide to build your own file server. However, just because you save money now, you may not save money later; by investing a little more up front, a NAS box will save you money and possibly headaches in the long run.

Power consumption-a file server PC is like a black hole for your power budget, it will suck away your hard earn cash to fuel its inefficient power systems. A PC at the minimum will consume about 200 watts of energy, while a 4 drive NAS will utilize about 20-30 watts of energy (single drive systems around 7~15 watts)

Noise--PCs are loud when compared to the noise level of a NAS box. It doesn't matter how you cut it--a NAS box will be a lot quieter then compared against a PC. And a quiet NAS box makes life happy for everyone—who wants to hear the whirring noise of hard drives and fans when it’s dinner time?


Heat--Who needs the baseboard heater during the winter time, when you have a file server PC to keep you warm? While this may be good for the winter, it will terrible for the summer--heat in general is bad--you wouldn't want your precious data to suffer something as simple as a hard drive meltdown. Or you may end up spending more money on keeping the PC at an ideal temperature, which means more fans or AC, which leads to more costs in electricity; oh it’s a vicious cycle.


Space--A file server PC will take up a lot more space then a NAS box will, and for those have space limitations such as apartments, or dorms, have another computer just to serve as a file server is just a waste of space.


In general, the whole premise of favoring a NAS box over the File server PC is ergonomics, and long term operating costs. The cost of the energy required to power up a PC will cost a lot more then a NAS box. Also, the amount of heat, noise a PC generates doesn't meet the bill of file storage. And you have to find more room to stick this PC somewhere, where an NAS box can fit right next to your computer or under your desk or even right next to your TV for those who want multimedia applications.


Even if you decided that you only need 500GB for storage, just think about the future, 500GB may be good for now, and you can still use a PC to do that, but even a single drive NAS, like the Synology DS-106e, or the Buffalo Gigabit LinkStations would still fit the bill a lot better then having a power hungry, loud PC sitting in the corner of your office.


For those who are thinking about it, yes one could hide the file server in a basement to keep the noise level down, however, it still doesn’t hide the fact that you need to consider additional energy and cooling resources to keep that computer running.


So, this is my argument against using a PC as a file server, if you just need to store files, or even stream files for multimedia applications, it doesn't justify the long term costs of operating a PC over a NAS box. A PC is large, loud, power hungry, conspicuous, overly warm addition to serve your file needs. And it increases the cost of energy as you spend it to keep it cool, or keep your room cool---it doesn't cut it when a smaller footprint, 30 watt NAS box can do the same job and more. If you look at some of these devices, they also serve as web servers, backup servers and much more...which means you get more bang for your buck when you use a NAS box.
August 1, 2006 10:18:31 PM

Booyah!

Thank you for the article.

My NASLite 2 pumps out some "fileage" as well. I'm happy with it at the moment.

I have a feeling that I will eventually upgrade to a larger box that will hold eight 3.5" drives with room to spare. Like this, ThermalTake Mambo VC2000BNS Black MidTower Case , it's a darn good buy with 11 bays for $24.99 with a rebate. It has no PSU but I have enough laying around to reenact the scene in the last Matrix film from when the machines are attacking Zion. Like you say most drives require little power compared to most other components so a little 200 or 250 watt will more than do.

I have a 440BX mobo with a 1Ghz P3 and 1 GB of RAM I’m not using. I would pull the gigabit NIC from the old box. You really don’t need a fast processor for this kind of computer, your disks, RAM, HD controller and NICs are much more important. I may buy 8 shiny new SATA drives and two 4-port cards rather than spending $400 on an 8-port raid card. I know that some brands when using multiple cards allow you to stripe across controllers on top various raid configurations.

For noise I have a passive cooler for the P3 and the above cheaply priced case uses 120mm fans for cooling. I don't like the BYOD boxes I don't think they meet my needs. I do most of this at home for fun and I don’t like the overly priced off the shelf poo. I feel that the RTG NAS and BYOD NAS boxes are for the likes of my mother, aunts and grandmothers.

pythagoras822k If ya really want MASS go get a DASD from IBM. :roll: or even an HP Jukebox 1. Both can and do have lots of mass in multiple units of measure. Good luck finding a bag to put one in.

Seriously thanks for the article.
August 5, 2006 4:12:32 PM

i could have sworn that the first time the charts were released you also added the Buffalo HD-Lan Linkstation. Any chance you'll add the Buffalo Linkstation or the Kuro Box? Also, would you consider adding power usage? i don't know about you, but i haven't built a full NAS from a spare computer b/c of pure power usage. I bought a Kuro Box and a IOMega 250gb StorCenter b/c they don't use much power at all and i can definitely leave them on all the time. the last time i read a review of the Kuro Box i think it used only about 14watts. Thanks for the charts and the reviews, it definitely helped me choose the IOMega StorCenter and the Kuro Box. I was also considering the DLink NAS and the Netgear NAS before purchasing those 2.
August 5, 2006 10:01:26 PM

Is the review of the Maxtor Shared Storage II available anywhere?
The data are in the charts, but the review?

From what I gather from the charts, and prices I got online today (aug 5, 2006: 810 euro for 1TB, 390 euro for the 500Gb version), this would be the price/performance winner by far!?!

Or am I missing something?
Thanx.


E.
August 7, 2006 1:57:33 PM

Quote:
Is the review of the Maxtor Shared Storage II available anywhere? The data are in the charts, but the review?

Review is coming later. Testing was completed, so we added the results to the charts.
August 7, 2006 2:03:24 PM

Quote:
i could have sworn that the first time the charts were released you also added the Buffalo HD-Lan Linkstation. Any chance you'll add the Buffalo Linkstation or the Kuro Box?

These products were not added the the charts. Only the Gigabit LinkStation.
Unlikely either will be added.
Quote:
Also, would you consider adding power usage?

Pretty much any of these NASes will use less power than a DIY NAS built using a computer. Power consumption measurement is not a priority at this point.
August 7, 2006 2:29:45 PM

Lol no power saving for cry babies.
August 8, 2006 12:14:26 PM

Quote:
Any plans on reviewing the Newisys NA-1400? Also, do you have any noise and or power measurements for your reviews. Not looking to hide my NAS in the basement?
There is a user impression review here: http://www.na1400.info/wiki/doku.php/doc/general/firsti...
There's lots of info on that site about the Newisys NA-1400...

Seems like the noise levels are quite high for home usage. However there is work underway to get additional software running on the box. Also some people of the Debian Linux project are interested in getting Debian to work on it. This might lead to a pretty versatile device in the end.

Performance is better then the Terastation, but cannot match the ReadyNAS series (as well as DIY NAS servers ofcourse).
Quote:
As this market drives me nuts sometimes ... trying to figure out who actually makes the original device ... do you test the:

Newisys NA-1400

or the

Hammer Storage NA-1400?
Newisys is the manufacturer of the NA-1400 which they sell as an OEM product. So others can build their own version, but you can also buy it as-is from Newisys resellers.
August 12, 2006 9:12:04 PM

Hi,

There's something that puzzles me in the first chart: How come the Write Performance @100Mbps of the Iomega 320Gb Storecentre Pro 200d /w REV (33243) for a 64Mb file is 14.4 MB/s ?- this is well above the maximum raw throughput rate of 12.5 MB/s of a 100Mbps interface? 8O
Is it a typo?Some other reason?

The original drive review article doesn't help out; the 3D graphs are hard to read, and are less informative as they are reported to be influenced "due to write caching effects in Win XP".

Thanks,


E.
August 14, 2006 1:32:09 PM

Quote:
There's something that puzzles me in the first chart: How come the Write Performance @100Mbps of the Iomega 320Gb Storecentre Pro 200d /w REV (33243) for a 64Mb file is 14.4 MB/s ?- this is well above the maximum raw throughput rate of 12.5 MB/s of a 100Mbps interface?

You are seeing the effects of caching.
August 17, 2006 4:34:39 AM

I have been considering building a Raid 5 NAS for some time. (Well ever since I outgrew my Simpletech 250!!) Typically I build my PCs but I don't mind appliances either. I wondered if you will be doing a comparison of the NAS appliances again. If not, do you plan to review a USR 8700 or is it too similar to other products in the list. If it is similar to another, can you point this out. I think another user pointed out that often these boxes are relabeled and sold by several people.
September 9, 2006 7:35:42 AM

just some suggestions on performance test.

I think the iozone performance not really for NAS product. It's more suitable for internal storages.

For a NAS product, simple file upload/download could be better benchmark. For example upload/download 1x1G file and 1000x100k files.

For SMB products, the netbench that simulates MS office's behaivor to access the NAS could be a good benchmark, too. It's more like the really usage in the office.

From my experience, if samba "oplocks" is turned off, the iozone read performance could become very good. But netbench performance would drop to 1/2 which means when you use MS Office, the document can't be cached in local machine and has to write to NAS immidiately if file is changed.

Another thing is FTP performance, it would be interesting to test FTP performance, too. Not just Samba.
September 10, 2006 10:52:13 AM

I do like the NAS charts. About the only thing I've seen in the industry that tries to legitmately measure performance on these boxes. Very useful.

A couple of further things I'd like to see:

* Noise Measurements

I think it was requested before, but I'm not sure the assessment that the NAS boxes would always be quieter than a PC is true. Granted, in theory that should be the case, but PCs can be noisy or quiet, depending on their configurations, fan sizes and speeds, etc. There are quiet PCs. In a room with all quiet PCs, a noisy NAS would stand out.


Add D-Link DNS-323 to the charts

D-Link is out with an new gigabit NAS box, see:

http://www.dlink.com/products/?sec=1&pid=509

Pricing appears to be right at $200, so when you add a SATA drive or two (it can run RAID 1), you end up with a box that's pretty competitive with the Buffalo and other lower-end offerings in the line up.



Paul Jones
September 18, 2006 4:45:04 AM

Am I missing something or are the performance numbers for the Infant ReadyNAS NV over 1Gbps Ethernet missing from the consolidated NAS charts?
September 19, 2006 2:36:40 PM

Quote:
just some suggestions on performance test.

I think the iozone performance not really for NAS product. It's more suitable for internal storages.

For a NAS product, simple file upload/download could be better benchmark. For example upload/download 1x1G file and 1000x100k files.

For SMB products, the netbench that simulates MS office's behaivor to access the NAS could be a good benchmark, too. It's more like the really usage in the office.

From my experience, if samba "oplocks" is turned off, the iozone read performance could become very good. But netbench performance would drop to 1/2 which means when you use MS Office, the document can't be cached in local machine and has to write to NAS immidiately if file is changed.

Another thing is FTP performance, it would be interesting to test FTP performance, too. Not just Samba.

Thanks for the suggestions. There are many benchmarks that can be run and we've played with a few others. But we're sticking with iozone for now.
September 19, 2006 2:40:49 PM

Quote:
* Noise Measurements
I think it was requested before, but I'm not sure the assessment that the NAS boxes would always be quieter than a PC is true. Granted, in theory that should be the case, but PCs can be noisy or quiet, depending on their configurations, fan sizes and speeds, etc. There are quiet PCs. In a room with all quiet PCs, a noisy NAS would stand out.


Thinking about this. But room background noise may make the measurements not that useful.

Quote:
Add D-Link DNS-323 to the charts

We've asked D-Link a number of times for a review sample, but they haven't responded.
September 19, 2006 2:48:08 PM

Quote:
Am I missing something or are the performance numbers for the Infant ReadyNAS NV over 1Gbps Ethernet missing from the consolidated NAS charts?

Sorry, but the data I have was taken in RAID 5 mode and the charts show non-raid data. I no longer have access to the product to rerun the tests.

I will change the chart description to clarify this.
September 19, 2006 2:49:47 PM

Doh!!! 8O
September 19, 2006 5:37:56 PM

Quote:
Do you guys normally update the performance chart when newer firmware (which claims to improve performance) are out?

No. Not normally. Products are usually returned to the manufacturer after test.
September 20, 2006 1:11:32 PM

I'm a home user that does not need anything fancy or expensive, but I do have a lot of digital pictures and music that I don't want to lose. With one of the BYOD NAS boxes, could you use 3 drives for backup purposes, two mirrored and one offsite, then at some interval (weekly?) rotate out a drive and remirror the one rotated in? Is swapping and mirroring drives more complicated than it sounds? Is this an acceptable strategy? Any backup system is great until your house burns down.

The new D-Link DNS-323 appears to be hot-swappable, so a box like this might fit the bill.

Thanks.
September 20, 2006 1:35:22 PM

Quote:
I'm a home user that does not need anything fancy or expensive, but I do have a lot of digital pictures and music that I don't want to lose. With one of the BYOD NAS boxes, could you use 3 drives for backup purposes, two mirrored and one offsite, then at some interval (weekly?) rotate out a drive and remirror the one rotated in? Is swapping and mirroring drives more complicated than it sounds? Is this an acceptable strategy? Any backup system is great until your house burns down.

The new D-Link DNS-323 appears to be hot-swappable, so a box like this might fit the bill.

Thanks.


I’m thinking I would want to avoid opening the NAS and rebuilding the RAID all the time. I would just buy the number drives you want and an equal number of USB 2.0/Firewire enclosures for the drives. It would make things easier and cheaper. If you still wanted a NAS then there are some out there that can mount USB flash, optical, or hard drives.

BTW you can find 3.5" drive enclosures at Tiger Direct for less than $20.
October 4, 2006 10:59:39 PM

Tom, i think you should probably add a note when you wrote that "the Media Vault easily out-performs Thecus' dual-drive N2100 NAS with a gigabit connection". It might be of your readers' interest to know that the performance readings for the N2100 is based on an older firmware. The newest firmware from Thecus (version 2.1.01) for the N2100 definitely outperforms the HP.
October 5, 2006 3:46:52 AM

I am a little confused by some of the tech notes (link below) found on Thecus's website about the N5200.

http://www.thecus.com/downloadx.php?cid=1&pid=8

The first limitation listed on their site is "N5200 doesn’t support hard disk drives that won’t spin up before “start unit” command receives; such as Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 series. "

I have never seen anything about this on harddrive spec sheets. I checked seagate's website and did find anything about this spec. I wonder what other hard drives are incompatible with this unit. I was interested in using seagate's 7200.10 series harddrives with this unit. Any pointers would be helpful.
October 5, 2006 7:02:27 AM

I just got a Thecus N5200R installed at home (5 x 500gb Western Digital 500gb RE2 drives).

The unit came with firmware 1.00.02, which was apparently a bit buggy, but after a quick firmware update to 1.00.03, for me at least, it's been working flawlessly.

I'm pretty impressed with the unit, although my gig-ethernet speeds are a bit slower than the benchmark (~20mb/sec writes). That said, I just installed the gig-ethernet at home and I may still need to do some tweaking for max performance.

Once the drives were installed, building the raid-5 array and getting it formatting was a snap. Took the system approx 7 hours to format the 2.5tb of storage and build the parity data (I "think" it's actually usable about 15 minutes into the process when the RAID stripe set is created, but before the parity data is finished, but I let it finish completely before putting data on it, just to be safe). It comes up effortlessly as SMB shares and maps to windows drive letters just fine. My XBOX locates it via XBMC just fine, and plays both video and music from it perfectly.

There are still a few small firmware bugs, but they're mainly cosmetic in the web-interface, and on the LCD panel on the front. Documentation could be stronger in some areas, but nothing that can't be figured-out with a little tinkering.

The unit is fairly quiet (much quieter than my PC), and for the amount of space it has, it's quite tiny.

Until the full review comes out, if anyone has any questions, fire my way and I'll see what I can answer.

N.
October 5, 2006 2:23:39 PM

Any chance of reviewing the Adaptec SnapServer 110 and 210. Historically I've quite favoured Adaptec when I first moved into RAID territory, and their RAID cards may be pricey (though ebay has a fair share of cheapos for sale), but they don't half save a lot of frustration!

Adaptec have apparently said they're using their 'fabled' GuardianOS on these NAS's. I have no idea what GuardianOS is or how it performs, so I'd like to see how these SnapServers compare to the rest of the Linux and Windows (iomega) NAS boxes, with features and performance.
October 8, 2006 5:52:18 AM

Quote:

The unit came with firmware 1.00.02, which was apparently a bit buggy, but after a quick firmware update to 1.00.03, for me at least, it's been working flawlessly.

Just a quick update - I've been having a few issues with the unit rebooting approx every 48 hours - the LCD on the front stops cycling the box's status, then about 16 hours later, it will reboot (although the network and the drives are still active during that time). No error messages in the log when it reboots.

It also had a problem today when I powered it right down, and when it came back up, one of the drives didn't get re-added to the RAID-5 stripe. I manually added it back in and it's rebuilding now (about 4 hours to go). No data was lost and it's still accessible while rebuilding, but kind of strange. Not sure if this may be due to the new firmware (all of the drives still read "no errors"). I'm going to contact Thecus about it and ask for some advice.

[edit]
Another update - after doing a bit of research on Western Digital's website, I checked the jumpers on the drive. Apparently they were supposed to ship with a jumper on pins 1/2 on the back of the drive to disable power management and disable spread-spectrum clocking. There were no jumpers on my drives as delivered (sets power management off, but spread-spectrum clocking on)

I just put jumpers on pins 1/2 on all of my drives and did a shutdown/restart and this time everything came back up without any issues. I'll do some more testing, but hopefully I found the problem.

[edit - edit]
Although the RAID rebuild issues are totally gone now, I'm still having some problems with the 5200R rebooting every 24-36 hours. I opened it up tonight and re-seated the RAM and the network/flashmem daughterboards (maybe they got bumped-loose in transit?). If it continues doing it I'm going to give the Thecus distributer a call.

N.
October 12, 2006 6:32:22 AM

Nogami, are you using the XBMC to view ripped dvds that are stored in the NAS?? that is what i am hoping for, to rip my dvds to vob and then be able to view them on my hdtv set.

can this be done?
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!