Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Network Attached Storage (Read 10677 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Network Attached Storage

I'm about to change my pc and I was thinking of getting one with a small hard drive and move all my media library on a NAS, but I still would like to handle them with foobar locally. Is this possible? If yes, is there a recommended NAS device for foobar?
I'm late

Network Attached Storage

Reply #1 –
My first choice would be the synology NAS. I read here that it is possible to read files on the NAS using windows explorer, so my guess is that it should be as well possible to read them with any application that runs on windows, such as foobar2000, but I haven't found any explicit confirmation of this.
I'm late

Network Attached Storage

Reply #2 –
Any quality NAS should do what you want. You'll need to set up shares on the NAS and then mount them in windows and then you can access them like a local disk. The only tricky bit can be getting your share and file permissions correct on the NAS if you are plan on letting other people access files.

I was planning to do the small PC and NAS as well but I found it way too costly. If you motherboard has a spare PCI-e 8x port then you could buy a IBM M1015 (8 SATA3 ports) + cables from ebay and then a case that will allow for the extra 8 SATA disks. just keep adding disks until you run out of ports

M1015 + Cables = ~$160
New case = $200 - $300

If you do a lot of copying of large files then with a NAS you will be limited to 100MBps where as with the M1015 you will be getting full disk speed.




Who are you and how did you get in here ?
I'm a locksmith, I'm a locksmith.

Network Attached Storage

Reply #3 –
Quote from: A_Man_Eating_Duck on
If you do a lot of copying of large files then with a NAS you will be limited to 100MBps where as with the M1015 you will be getting full disk speed.

Only if your network is limited to Fast Ethernet. With Gigabit ethernet and even an entry-level NAS, you should see decent speeds in foobar2000.

E.g., with my two-year old NAS, I'm getting 100 MB/s downstream and 60 MB/s upstream. Yes, mass-tag editing via my local Seagate ST1000DM003 hard drive (a roughly 2 1/2 year-old 7200 rpm 1 TB single-platter hard disk) is slightly snappier, but it certainly doesn't feel painfully slow when using my NAS.

Network Attached Storage

Reply #4 –
100MBps = 100 megabytes per second.
100Mbps = 100 megabits per second.

I agree that Foobar2000 will be fine with 100MBps but if you do copy a lot of other large media (e.g. 1080p movies) it will be much quicker using the M1015 and local disks (if you are using newish HDs).
Who are you and how did you get in here ?
I'm a locksmith, I'm a locksmith.

Network Attached Storage

Reply #5 –
Okay, so I misread that. Your post still is a bit puzzling.

First, with Gigabit ethernet, the limit NAS reach isn't really 100 MB/s in practice. The maximum sequential downstream may be close to 100 MB/s, as Gigabit ethernet will become the bottleneck at like 105-110 MB/s. But many NAS will be slower in sequential upstream, particularly when used in common RAID configurations. So I don't quite understand why you mention this 100 MB/s figure.

Second, and more importantly, I'm not sure a desktop RAID setup is as stable as a NAS (RAID or non-RAID) setup for the mainstream consumer. I mean, a NAS in a default config will run a pretty stable *nix using a sensible journaling file system. What do you think OP would run the RAID controller on? A box with Win 7 home and, hopefully, a free antivirus?

Quote from: A_Man_Eating_Duck on
I agree that Foobar2000 will be fine with 100MBps but if you do copy a lot of other large media (e.g. 1080p movies) it will be much quicker using the M1015 and local disks (if you are using newish HDs).

OP was asking about foobar specifically, not about 1080p movies. Furthermore, are "newish" hard drives in practice really much faster than what Gigabit ethernet allows, considering that foobar2000 usage is probably mostly, but not completely, sequential in nature?

EDIT: Lastly, maybe OP is considering a NAS for a reason. Many Windows PC setups won't deliver the same, 24/7 WoL availability and moderate power consumption as a NAS.

Network Attached Storage

Reply #6 –
Quote from: audiophool on
Okay, so I misread that. Your post still is a bit puzzling.

First, with Gigabit ethernet, the limit NAS reach isn't really 100 MB/s in practice. The maximum sequential downstream may be close to 100 MB/s, as Gigabit ethernet will become the bottleneck at like 105-110 MB/s. But many NAS will be slower in sequential upstream, particularly when used in common RAID configurations. So I don't quite understand why you mention this 100 MB/s figure.
Ok i'll revise what i said about the max speed, the max speed for gigabit Ethernet is 125MBps. you are correct about the throughput being around 105-110 in the perfect environment. I put 100MBps as a safe achievable figure.

Quote
Second, and more importantly, I'm not sure a desktop RAID setup is as stable as a NAS (RAID or non-RAID) setup for the mainstream consumer. I mean, a NAS in a default config will run a pretty stable *nix using a sensible journaling file system. What do you think OP would run the RAID controller on? A box with Win 7 home and, hopefully, a free antivirus?
What I'm suggesting is to get a M1015 and use it just as a SATA controller, JBOD and attach disk when the storage is needed, i should have been clearer about this in my initial post. If the M1015 dies the HDs can just be plugged in to any motherboard SATA port and the data can be accessed.

Quote
Quote from: A_Man_Eating_Duck on
I agree that Foobar2000 will be fine with 100MBps but if you do copy a lot of other large media (e.g. 1080p movies) it will be much quicker using the M1015 and local disks (if you are using newish HDs).

OP was asking about foobar specifically, not about 1080p movies. Furthermore, are "newish" hard drives in practice really much faster than what Gigabit ethernet allows, considering that foobar2000 usage is probably mostly, but not completely, sequential in nature?
I understand this, thats why i said but if in my reply. Most people use a personal computer for more than one task. Benchmarking my 4 year old 640GB 7.2k rpm WD blue HD = 95MBps Read, 90MBps Write compared to a 1 year old Seagate 3TB 7.2k rpm HD = 150MBps Read, 137MBps Write., both drives are 56%-57% full.

Quote
EDIT: Lastly, maybe OP is considering a NAS for a reason. Many Windows PC setups won't deliver the same, 24/7 WoL availability and moderate power consumption as a NAS.
All I'm offering is a suggestion.

Lets wait for the OP to reply and find out what they are trying to do.
Who are you and how did you get in here ?
I'm a locksmith, I'm a locksmith.

Network Attached Storage

Reply #7 –
My solution is http://cirago.com/nus2000.php

It's a cheap option and works fairly well. It is easy to set up and attached drives can be mounted via network locations as normal lettered drives in win. It's easy to access via my local net or via internet.

My original hope was to run a portable foobar directly off of a HD attached to the device. It worked, but was too slow with my library (~1.6TB), so my alternative is to run a FB locally and just read the library from the network drive.

I combined that with creative xi-fi USBstick and multiple receivers to have wireless music throughout my house much cheaper and at higher quality than bluetooth. Each receiver came with a remote which are configured for basic control of FB, so I don't need to be at the laptop. Additionally I can do more advanced control via smartphone.

It isn't vinyl, but I rarely miss my stacks of clutter.

Network Attached Storage

Reply #8 –
Quote from: davideleo on
My first choice would be the synology NAS. I read here that it is possible to read files on the NAS using windows explorer, so my guess is that it should be as well possible to read them with any application that runs on windows, such as foobar2000, but I haven't found any explicit confirmation of this.

This is the solution I use.  Synology NAS with dual bays.  Any NAS that supports Windows shares (a.k.a. SMB or Samba) should work though.

Network Attached Storage

Reply #9 –
First of all thanks a lot to everyone for your answers and suggestions. I understand that my fear that foobar would not work over a NAS is unjustified.


Quote from: A_Man_Eating_Duck on
Quote
Quote from: A_Man_Eating_Duck on
I agree that Foobar2000 will be fine with 100MBps but if you do copy a lot of other large media (e.g. 1080p movies) it will be much quicker using the M1015 and local disks (if you are using newish HDs).

OP was asking about foobar specifically, not about 1080p movies. Furthermore, are "newish" hard drives in practice really much faster than what Gigabit ethernet allows, considering that foobar2000 usage is probably mostly, but not completely, sequential in nature?
I understand this, thats why i said but if in my reply. Most people use a personal computer for more than one task. Benchmarking my 4 year old 640GB 7.2k rpm WD blue HD = 95MBps Read, 90MBps Write compared to a 1 year old Seagate 3TB 7.2k rpm HD = 150MBps Read, 137MBps Write., both drives are 56%-57% full.

Quote
EDIT: Lastly, maybe OP is considering a NAS for a reason. Many Windows PC setups won't deliver the same, 24/7 WoL availability and moderate power consumption as a NAS.
All I'm offering is a suggestion.

Lets wait for the OP to reply and find out what they are trying to do.



The reason I'm interested in the NAS is personal clouding and remote access, therefore besides 24/7 usage features I need apps for mobiles and tablets and browser based interfaces, but still I need to be comfortable working on my data locally and I actually do move large files and do a lot of mass tagging (I don't have a spare PCI express though  ). Perhaps mjm716's solution squares the circle.
I'm late

Network Attached Storage

Reply #10 –
Quote from: mjm716 on
My solution is http://cirago.com/nus2000.php

I don't think this will have the stability and performance of a NAS.

Most external USB drives aren't suitable for 24/7 operation. They often get hot in their enclosures which reduces the lifetime of the drive. Also, 3.5" USB drives aren't very robust (you can end up with a severely corrupted drive when it falls over during operation).

I'm skeptical that a USB connection will be as stable as a SATA connection. That's just a hunch, though, I don't have anything to back this up.

Lastly, with a NAS, you can get drives which are optimized for 24/7 operation. I'm not talking about expensive enterprise drives but middle-of-the-road drives, namely WD Red and Seagate NAS HDD. They have multiple advantages over the desktop drives (WD Green and such) you're likely to find in USB enclosures. The NAS drives vibrate less which is an important factor in RAIDs, they do Time Limited Error Recovery (which, again, is important in certain RAID configurations), and the manufacturers claim they yield less read errors.

For the usage scenarios davideleo mentions, performance should be quite good, too.

Lastly, how's product support for the CiragoLink+ recommendation? Do you get the same number of years of security updates as with a Synology or QNAP NAS? davideleo wants to have remote access so it's very important to talk about security.

Network Attached Storage

Reply #11 –
Quote from: audiophool on
I don't think this will have the stability and performance of a NAS.

Lastly, how's product support for the CiragoLink+ recommendation? Do you get the same number of years of security updates as with a Synology or QNAP NAS? davideleo wants to have remote access so it's very important to talk about security.


The cirago isn't a top NAS, however I was only looking for essentially a streaming media server, not an enterprise solution. I think I found it for $40, the feature set is good and was effortless to setup.

I use 3 WD 2TB my passport ultra drives which are about the size of an audio cassette case and are powered via USB cable, so no extra outlets/cables needed and no heat or noise issues. It's all fed via 802.11n router.

I can't recommend cirago for their support - I've tried contacting them to inquire when support for larger drives (currently 2TB max per USB; 8TB max in total) would be available and never get a response. I would imagine that a firmware update could sort that issue.

I've been using it 24/7 from home and work for about 8 months now without problems and just do regular backups of the drives.

Network Attached Storage

Reply #12 –
Quote from: audiophool on
Lastly, with a NAS, you can get drives which are optimized for 24/7 operation. I'm not talking about expensive enterprise drives but middle-of-the-road drives, namely WD Red and Seagate NAS HDD. They have multiple advantages over the desktop drives (WD Green and such) you're likely to find in USB enclosures. The NAS drives vibrate less which is an important factor in RAIDs, they do Time Limited Error Recovery (which, again, is important in certain RAID configurations), and the manufacturers claim they yield less read errors.

This. Using NAS type disk drives in a NAS is important.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Network Attached Storage

Reply #13 –
Just having 1 copy of you media is not a backup even if it's sitting on a NAS with RAID enabled so make sure you have a backup plan in place for the NAS just in case you have a major failure. Using external HD(s) to backup all the important data from your NAS weekly (or fortnightly or monthly) is a good start.

Who are you and how did you get in here ?
I'm a locksmith, I'm a locksmith.

Network Attached Storage

Reply #15 –
Given that a NAS can be read by windows as a system unity, the main issue I should be concerned with is the connection speed and in this regard a gigabit ethernet connection is of course better than the 2.0 USB of the cirago device. I wonder though how the NAS CPU performance affects the desktop efficiency.

Quote from: MrMonkey on
This is the solution I use.  Synology NAS with dual bays.  Any NAS that supports Windows shares (a.k.a. SMB or Samba) should work though.


Which Synology have you got? At first I was aiming at the 214, now I'm wondering if the 800Mhz CPU might make a faster CPU on the PC useless.
I'm late

Network Attached Storage

Reply #16 –
Quote from: davideleo on
Which Synology have you got? At first I was aiming at the 214, now I'm wondering if the 800Mhz CPU might make a faster CPU on the PC useless.

First off, don't look at clock speeds when comparing completely different instruction set architectures as you're doing in the above. (You could start reading here if you don't appreciate this point.)

Second, and more importantly, serving files isn't that resource-intensive. An 800 MHz single-core ARM may be sufficient to almost max out Gigabit ethernet for file transfers that are sequential in nature, especially when serving only a single client at a time. It should provide decent performance for random-access loads as well. Also note that the CPU of the NAS is not the only factor determining its performance.

Third, there are multiple versions of Synology's 214 series dual bay NAS. There is a 214 model which has an 800 MHz processor (the DS214se). But other models have different specs. The DS214, for example, has a dual-core Marvell processor clocked at about 1 GHz. This is just to clarify in case you weren't aware of this.

Even the lowly DS214se may be sufficient for pure file sharing (on Windows, you're most likely looking for CIFS, also known as SMB or "Windows Shares"). The more add-on packages you want to run on your NAS (e.g., Owncloud or Cloud Station; media servers like Plex or Logitech Media Server; Mail Server; etc.), the more powerful the NAS should be, though.

Quote from: davideleo on
better than the 2.0 USB of the cirago device.

I didn't realize that device had USB 2.0 ports rather than USB 3.0 ports. With those, you incur a huge performance penality. Even a $100 NAS will be vastly superior.

Sorry for being so verbose, but I think mjm716's suggestion is just terrible. The WD my passport ultra are also not really suitable for your purposes. They cost close to 50% more per GB than a WD Red while having features much inferior to a WD Red (only considering features relevant for NAS usage).

Network Attached Storage

Reply #17 –
Quote from: davideleo on
Which Synology have you got? At first I was aiming at the 214, now I'm wondering if the 800Mhz CPU might make a faster CPU on the PC useless.

212J.  It's a few years old.  I have a 3TB and a 2TB drive in there.

Network Attached Storage

Reply #18 –
Quote from: audiophool on
Third, there are multiple versions of Synology's 214 series dual bay NAS. There is a 214 model which has an 800 MHz processor (the DS214se). But other models have different specs. The DS214, for example, has a dual-core Marvell processor clocked at about 1 GHz. This is just to clarify in case you weren't aware of this.

Yes, I was thinking actually of the 214se. I just noticed the more powerful (and expensive) 214play and 214+. Thanks for the advise!


Quote from: audiophool on
Second, and more importantly, serving files isn't that resource-intensive.
[...]
Even the lowly DS214se may be sufficient for pure file sharing...


I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "pure file sharing". I'm planning to move all my libraries on the NAS and use the desktop hard drive for applications and system files only. So, whereas I will only browse and stream files when accessing the NAS from internet, I want to create, modify and move files in the NAS from the ethernet connected desktop using windows based applications. So, for example, I might work on a picture located on the NAS with photoshop, while listening to music located on the NAS with foobar and running one or even two p2p in the background that download and upload files from and to folders located on the NAS. Or maybe none of the above, but I might work with ableton live on a project located on the NAS.
Now, with my libraries on the desktop hard drive an i5 intel core with 4/8 GB RAM, which is what I'm looking forward for the new PC, would be more than enough. But how powerful does the NAS have to be in order to take advantage of those desktop features?


I hope this is not too OT for a foobar forum.
I'm late

Network Attached Storage

Reply #19 –
Quote from: davideleo on
I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "pure file sharing".

Yeah, it's not a common term. What I meant was traditional file server duty that relies on a few well-known protocols (CIFS/SMB for Windows, NFS for Linux, WebDAV, etc.). Standard ways of sharing files over the network.

And that isn't costly computationally. A lowly processor such as the one in the DS214se is basically sufficient for these. Of course, it is different if there are multiple concurrent accesses to the files on the NAS. Also, I'm simplifying a bit here. It's not true that hardware doesn't matter at all. E.g., the small RAM size of 256 MB of the DS214se may hamper performance when reading or writing files of certain sizes.

Anyways, every NAS I know supports these standard file sharing protocols. But many NASes can do more and act as a full-blown server, too. Media server, mail server, Backup server, etc. Some of such usage scenarios are more demanding, especially when running multiple servers and services simultaneously. If you plan on doing that, it may be worth getting a better model. The better models have other advantages as well in certain usages. E.g., the DS214play can do on-the-fly video transcoding (up to 1080p) because it has an Intel processor which is very efficient in executing that task.

Network Attached Storage

Reply #20 –
Does anybody know this one?
I'm late

Network Attached Storage

Reply #21 –
Quote from: A_Man_Eating_Duck on
If you motherboard has a spare PCI-e 8x port then you could buy a IBM M1015 (8 SATA3 ports) + cables from ebay and then a case that will allow for the extra 8 SATA disks. just keep adding disks until you run out of ports

M1015 + Cables = ~$160
New case = $200 - $300

If you do a lot of copying of large files then with a NAS you will be limited to 100MBps where as with the M1015 you will be getting full disk speed.


I'm reconsidering this solution. After some inquiries on NAS performace I'm more and more convinced that I need full disk speed. If I get it right, there are softwares such as Plex that allow remote access to your pc, just like a NAS. So to have a PC/NAS hybrid set up I only need to make sure that the machine can stand a 24/7 usage and for that I have no idea what I should take care of. Do you have any tips?
I'm late

Network Attached Storage

Reply #22 –
If you want it just for file shares then it's not really that resource intense. pretty much any CPU, motherboard and 2-4GB of ram will be fine.

If you want to use Plex then i think the computer maybe used for transcoding some of the media. transcoding can be quite CPU intensive so a more powerful CPU and more ram might be needed.

Before you buy anything can you set up your current computer in a way to replicate what you are planning on doing? This will give you a good idea if your current PC is up to the task of running Plex for example. Also it would be good to know the specs of your current computer as well; CPU, RAM, Motherboard.

Running the computer 24/7 is not really a big deal as long as the computer is stable.

Also don't forget the backup plan!
Who are you and how did you get in here ?
I'm a locksmith, I'm a locksmith.

Network Attached Storage

Reply #23 –
Quote from: A_Man_Eating_Duck on
Running the computer 24/7 is not really a big deal as long as the computer is stable.

There is an environmental and cost aspect to running a NAS 24/7. OP mentioned he wants to run stuff like Ableton Live and Photoshop on his desktop. So I assume he won't get a model that's particularly power-saving.

Such a desktop may easily draw 40-50 W power idle and 120+ W under load. (My estimates include the power consumption of the RAID controller and the hard drives.) A consumer or small home office NAS will draw around 10-20 W idle and 25-40 W under load (again, including the drives).

The difference in energy consumption can amount to 250-300 kWh/year. Now, with the energy prices of my home country, that amounts to a cost difference of around 70-80 Euro/year. (As energy costs much less in the US, the cost difference there would only amount to 40-50 USD, assuming the electricity is purchased in a New England state.)

Then we should acknowledge that your typical desktop from Best Buy or from the home/consumer stores of Dell/HP/Lenovo won't do for a big array of disks. So either he buys a more expensive business-class desktop, or he builds his own desktop, or he goes for an external solution like the one suggested which adds USD 160 to the bill.

If you add up the extra energy bills plus the cost for the desktop hardware/peripherals, you arrive at a figure equivalent to a higher-quality NAS. Considering a NAS is less susceptible to viruses and other malware than a Windows box, I would clearly prefer the NAS.

Quote from: davideleo on
Quote from: A_Man_Eating_Duck on
If you motherboard has a spare PCI-e 8x port then you could buy a IBM M1015 (8 SATA3 ports) + cables from ebay and then a case that will allow for the extra 8 SATA disks. just keep adding disks until you run out of ports

M1015 + Cables = ~$160
New case = $200 - $300

If you do a lot of copying of large files then with a NAS you will be limited to 100MBps where as with the M1015 you will be getting full disk speed.


I'm reconsidering this solution. After some inquiries on NAS performace I'm more and more convinced that I need full disk speed.

Have you seen actual performance comparisons of typical NAS hard drives when run on a desktop versus when run on a NAS? If not, maybe it's time to head over to Anandtech where they do these comparisons, including tests involving Photoshop which you stated you use.

It is true that you can cook up test scenarios where the network will be the bottleneck. But they may be much rarer than you think. For example, during Photoshop usage, they measure a bandwidth of around 6-8 MBps when running on the desktop!

Lastly, and most importantly, I'm not sure I understand the rationale for the scenarios you entertain. Basically, you wrote you either want everything on the NAS (except the Windows OS and programs) or everything on the desktop. Why?

I understand you might not wanna have to sync two copies of your media files. So those could all go on your NAS and be accessed directly from there. But when working in Live or Photoshop, why not make a local copy of the project you're working on? Copying over the project from the NAS will be almost purely sequential access. So there, you'll get a speed of close to 100 MBps. That's not much slower than what you would get locally. Locally, you get like 130-140 MBps sequentially with a hard drive suitable for 24/7 operation. Higher performance would be achievable only if you go for a performance RAID (but that was not the suggestion, A Man Eating Duck suggested running the drives as JBOD).

Network Attached Storage

Reply #24 –
Quote from: A_Man_Eating_Duck on
Also it would be good to know the specs of your current computer as well; CPU, RAM, Motherboard.


I Have an intel core 2 duo e6300 CPU (1,86 Ghz) and 2GB RAM. The motherboard is an asus p5LD2 se. I took it out of my tower desktop together wiht the 500 GB HD and had it assembled in a horizontal case with two extra HD of 2TB each and an Intel 82801GB/GR/GH (ICH7 Family) SATA storage controller.


All my media libraries are on the first 2TB disk and I use the second one for backups.

So, my pc is actually already set up in a similar way I want the new one to be. The only problem is that since a few months it is unbearably slow and I'm afraid running plex on it could be the final nail in the coffin.
I'm late