NASLite Network Attached Storage

www.serverelements.com
Task-specific simplicity with low hardware requirements.
It is currently Mon Jun 24, 2019 2:59 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 128 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:28 pm
Posts: 26
RAID is always an interesting discussion topic. I just hate to get the thread so off topic....but anyways

First, for this storage, I will be using desktop quality drives instead of server quality ones, so naturally, I am concerned about downtime. RAID-5's normal operation speed is fine, but it is still horrible when rebuiding the array.

Second, by using large quantity of seperate file servers, if a server goes down completely, the user still won't notice a thing (that's the nature of my service, which I won't go into more details). If I have an array box or or a server with 8 or 12 drives, if it goes down, it is definitely damaging.

The nature of the service determines it is best to have a lot of different servers.

Third, SATA RAID cards with 8 or 12 ports are very expensive. Actually, it is sometimes cheaper to bulid a SCSI array than SATA because of this even though SCSI drives are more expensive.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 1:50 pm
Posts: 604
Location: Texas, USA
BUMMER! :roll:

http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php? ... _id=507589


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 1:44 pm
Posts: 14
This is funny, what were all the people, who claim freenas is faster than naslite smoking?

Kinda hard to argue it's fast when the freenas author says it ain't LOL


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 11:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 1:50 pm
Posts: 604
Location: Texas, USA
Quote:
Kinda hard to argue it's fast when the freenas author says it ain't LOL

Now, if he'd only list the rest of the problems with that half-baked contraption. I know i know, nuf beating the dead horse. :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 11:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 1:50 pm
Posts: 604
Location: Texas, USA
A good read on the topic here

http://www.thestorageforum.com/blog/ind ... rt-review/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 1:10 pm
Posts: 46
Is 58min for 24gig is fast?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 1:50 pm
Posts: 604
Location: Texas, USA
Kodiak#1 wrote:
Is 58min for 24gig is fast?


What are you referring to?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 1:10 pm
Posts: 46
I'm refering to the download time of the naslite 2 and 24gig of data. I used Norton Ghost. This is on an 1300 amd with 256mb ram. Just wondering if that is good or slow. 10/100 nic with a wd250gig 7200 HD.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 1:50 pm
Posts: 604
Location: Texas, USA
Kodiak#1 wrote:
I'm refering to the download time of the naslite 2 and 24gig of data. I used Norton Ghost. This is on an 1300 amd with 256mb ram. Just wondering if that is good or slow. 10/100 nic with a wd250gig 7200 HD.


Is that the size of the image or the raw data on the drive you are ghosting? Also, are you compressing the image or not? I think that what you are asking really makes no sense because you are not transferring data only. The client is running a process that does a lot of work prior to storing the result on the nas. What exactly are you timing?

Theoretical max for 100 is about 11M/s. Your numbers work out to about 7M/s or 63% of max capacity. That may be the limit of your network setup (nics, hubs, switches, etc.), but is not representative of what your hardware can do. Take a look at my post on the following thread:

http://www.serverelements.com/phpBB2/vi ... php?t=1224

I posted some numbers on the second page of the thread. I was getting transfers in the high nines on much lesser hardware than yours.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 1:10 pm
Posts: 46
This is just a little home test on two different boxes I was trying out. No benchmarking tools, no ideal situations for one or the other to operate better or worse other then the fact that the second pc here is a 400mhz, 128mb ram, 80gig 5400rpm HD with 10/100nic. I used Norton 9.0 to create the image with standard compression over a cat5 cable through one linksys gig switch. 1300 machine was (excuse me) 54min and the second 58min. I really didn't think either was all that bad and I was pleased with the results. Thing that surprised me with all what I have seen about the differences in speed with Naslite 2 and Freenas I don't see a great deal of difference since the lesser box had freenas on it. Now don't go getting all worked up about this because I'm not a professional tester or anything and this is just an observation. I probably should put freenas on the faster box and Nas on the lesser box and test but then I would have to buy another copy so I just left it at that. Would be nice to know though.

With all that being said and being a technician and responsible for upkeep of hundreds of machines in several business locations I would not offer up Freenas as a solution for there data storage at this time due to what I have seen here about stability issues. I also have a hard time offering Naslite due to lack of security however since anyone can access this server and delete away. For home use though I love it. I actually like both.

Just some of my thought here. Don't get your panties in a bunch.

By the way, I just found these little pieces of software (Naslite and Freenas) about a week ago and started my research on it and it's been very interesting. I do have a few shops I can put a couple test machines out there so I think I will do that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 9:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 1:50 pm
Posts: 604
Location: Texas, USA
Quote:
Don't get your panties in a bunch.


I disserved that didn’t I? :lol:

Well, you are mostly correct that performance on a 100 network can be close between the two. The difference becomes obvious when you lower the hardware specs or move to gigabit. There are other things to take into consideration, primarily the ability to serve multiple streams simultaneously. Naslite consistently does a much better job at that than Freenas.

Quote:
I would not offer up Freenas as a solution for there data storage at this time due to what I have seen here about stability issues.


My advice regarding Freenas, work it hard for a while and draw your own conclusions. You seem to be in the same boat as me. If it’s your a** on the line, you tend to take better care before suggesting a solution to your customer.

You should be able to unlock Naslite as many times as you need to, so I don’t see a problem with running your tests. I did anyway.

8)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 11:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 1:10 pm
Posts: 46
LOL. I will have to grab me some gigabyte lan cards and give it a go. I'm on FIOS now anyway with 15 down and 2 up so I imagine I would benefit from gigabyte cards anyway. It seems that the stability issues come into play when using software raid. In a non raid setup are both equally stable? I will switch the systems and see what happens. I was under the impression that you had 5 unlocks. Will be interesting. Biggest thing that bothers me is no security. Freenas says it has it with users and groups but I enable that and nothing changes. Freenas is a little harder to set up but once figured out it is OK. Being in it's infancy freenas is pretty nice. I would call it a beta program not fully functional and ready for use in a environment that rely s heavily on there data. Keep another copy of there data in other words. Has anyone here used freenas for a while now?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 9:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 1:10 pm
Posts: 46
Hmmmmm, very interesting indeed. Remember I'm not a pro at this and only testing on a network at home. Both PC's hooked up to the same line then removed and hooked the next pc up and ran. Both on same software, Norton Ghost 9.0.

AMD 1300 256mb DDR 2100, 250gig WD 7200rpm HD approx. 24gig of data imaged

Naslite 2 ran it in 54min
Freenas ran it in 49min

400mhz processor, 128mb pc100 mem, 5400 Maxtor HD, 24gig of data

Naslite 2 ran it in 53 min
Freenas ran it in 58min

Winner by a small margin was Freenas. Strange indeed after all I have read. Again I'm not a professional tester and this is just on a small home network with 4 other pc attached. Actually more pcs were up and running while I was testing freenas the Naslite. I would still not put my butt on the line with a, in my opinion, beta piece of software to save myself a few minutes.

Ease of setup goes handily to Naslite as I had to figure out freenas all over again. One thing that bothers me most is the things in freenas that are there that don't even work like users and groups. You can enable it all you want but it doesn't work. Formating and mounting the drives don't work as it tells you to do. Just rather flaky if you ask me. For $30 what the hell. I'll use something thats at least proven software. Put some security in there would you guys. You will sell a ton more. Trying to sell a business on a totally open system is very difficult.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 9:48 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 4:01 pm
Posts: 798
Location: ServerElements
This is really not a fair representation for any sort of benchmark.

If you could, please use diskwriggler, iozone or the passmark software. I'd be interested in seeing your results with those. Reboot between tests to negate caching.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 9:53 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 4:01 pm
Posts: 798
Location: ServerElements
Ops, I just noticed this was the floppy forum, were you comparing the naslite floppy to freenas?

If so, the floppy should be slower since we're limited on space for the higher speed drivers.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 128 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group