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 8516 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Network Attached Storage

Reply #25 –
Quote from: audiophool on
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 have big and always growing media libraries for which I need an adequate storage and just as much for backup. In my previous post I described my present PC setup which I cannot find in a ready-made solution. So I either assemble a similar one or I get a NAS, which I understand is the best way to connect an external storage. Personally I hate having cables and connected devices around, but what really matters is speed performance and... it is about time I have remote access to my libraries.


Quote from: audiophool on
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).

I'm a total newby in this field. I just learned from your post what a JBOD is. Can you suggest me a performance RAID that would make performance speed considerably higher than the ethernet connection? What is also quite hard for me to understand is to what extent the interface connection speed effects the operating speed of the PC. Let's say I get a good quad core i5, 8 GB RAM and a 7200 rpm HD, what features does the RAID require in order to take full advantage of the CPU?
I'm late

Network Attached Storage

Reply #26 –
Quote from: davideleo on
I'm a total newby in this field. I just learned from your post what a JBOD is. Can you suggest me a performance RAID that would make performance speed considerably higher than the ethernet connection?

You don't even need RAID to be faster than Ethernet.  A good new 7200 RPM drive can transfer faster than 1gb/sec. 

If you want more speed then RAID 0 gives you the most at the cost of greater chance of failure.  RAID 10 and RAID5 can also be faster than a single drive if they are a good implementation and have some redundancy built in.  RAID 1 can be faster on reads, but not on writes. 

Since you are running Windows, a good starting point for RAID is the built in one on higher end Intel chipsets.  Assuming a new system, the RAID on any 797 board is just fine and performs well.  Don't get any cheap "raid controller" add in cards.  They universally suck and will perform worse than the free RAID on your MB.  You need to spend a lot of money to get above what a 797 gives you for free.
Quote
What is also quite hard for me to understand is to what extent the interface connection speed effects the operating speed of the PC. Let's say I get a good quad core i5, 8 GB RAM and a 7200 rpm HD, what features does the RAID require in order to take full advantage of the CPU?

It really depends on your application.  Your CPU doesn't get any slower if you have slow storage, only file operations take longer.  For example, a slow storage system may cause photoshop to load/save slower, but it won't make it process things any slower.  If you have something really dependent on I/O like a database it can starve the CPU, but that is not a typical desktop task

Network Attached Storage

Reply #27 –
Quote from: washu on
You don't even need RAID to be faster than Ethernet.  A good new 7200 RPM drive can transfer faster than 1gb/sec.


Sorry, I'm probably misusing the term. I just thought RAID was always necessary with multiple disks so I's actually using it as a synonym for controller.

So, to sum it up, let's say I replicate my present 3 disks set up with updated hardware such as:

i5 quad-core CPU
8 GB RAM
7200 rpm hard drives (I might consider an SSD for the smaller OS disk, but let's not go into this now)
6Gb/s SATA

Than I will use plex or similar applications for remote access.

Is there any reason why I should prefer a NAS to this set up?
I'm late

Network Attached Storage

Reply #28 –
If you leave your computer on 24/7 then a NAS will save you on your power bill.

I do recommend that you keep things simple, using RAID can have it's benefits but it can also have it's fair share of problems as well when used in a home environment, e.g. slow disks, disks falling out of the array, array rebuild failure.

With your new build just make sure your new motherboard has 6 SATA ports on it and a spare PCI-E slot and I think you will be fine for a few years.
Who are you and how did you get in here ?
I'm a locksmith, I'm a locksmith.
 

Network Attached Storage

Reply #29 –
Quote from: davideleo on
Sorry, I'm probably misusing the term. I just thought RAID was always necessary with multiple disks so I's actually using it as a synonym for controller.

Nope, no RAID needed for multiple disks.  You can use multiple disks as completely separate units or add them together into a larger volume without RAID.  RAID is to decrease the chance of failure and/or increase speed. 

Please also consider that RAID is not a backup.  If you are concerned at all about your data then invest in a backup solution first, then add RAID if your budget allows. 
Quote
Is there any reason why I should prefer a NAS to this set up?

Unless you want to easily share your files to multiple devices without requiring your PC to be on then there is no benefit to a NAS.  If you want to turn off your PC to save power while other devices continue to access your files then a NAS is a good idea. 

Having your files local to your desktop will likely be faster, but don't confuse that with impacting CPU power.