NASLite Network Attached Storage

www.serverelements.com
Task-specific simplicity with low hardware requirements.
It is currently Fri May 02, 2025 12:48 pm

View unanswered posts | View active topics


Board index » v2.x NanoNAS » NanoNAS

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]



Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
  [ 12 posts ] 
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
NickC
 Post subject: Congratulations!
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 3:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:27 am
Posts: 577
Location: Scotland
Well done on the release of NanoNAS - the small footprint origins of NASLite are certainly not being forgotten.

Now then, does this mean that there is a possibility for development time being available for a GigaNAS (1e+9 rather than 1e-9 ;)) product to be added to the stable with increased functionality and a blatant disregard for the small footprint design criteria?
Top
 Profile  
 
dimension
 Post subject: Re: Congratulations!
PostPosted: Fri May 02, 2008 9:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 1:50 pm
Posts: 604
Location: Texas, USA
Yeah, got Nanonas today and so far i like it a lot. Can't believe it all fits on a floppy. Don't have a mac but the smb suits me just fine. It replaces the old floppies outright, so i may have to do the rounds and do some upgrades. Whatever it is you guys do, works cause i really like your stuff. Next step will be to flash Nanonas right on the bios. :P

So what exactly should Giganas do? I guess security will be useful. The developers keep quiet so we never know whats up next. What else are people looking for?
Top
 Profile  
 
superboss
 Post subject: Re: Congratulations!
PostPosted: Mon May 05, 2008 12:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 1:32 pm
Posts: 290
I'd personally would like to see gigaNAS to go for top performance on more powerful hardware. I'd like to see gigaNAS to outpeform Ubuntu Server, performance wise, on a setup like mine.
Top
 Profile  
 
sandor
 Post subject: Re: Congratulations!
PostPosted: Mon May 05, 2008 3:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 9:49 am
Posts: 48
Location: Philadelphia, PA, USA
superboss wrote:
I'd personally would like to see gigaNAS to go for top performance on more powerful hardware. I'd like to see gigaNAS to outpeform Ubuntu Server, performance wise, on a setup like mine.


what is the difference between Ubuntu and NASLite on your setup?
Top
 Profile  
 
superboss
 Post subject: Re: Congratulations!
PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 3:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 1:32 pm
Posts: 290
Well ubuntu ended up constantly freezing on my system so it had to go. The point is I'd like the new version of NASLite to take full advantage of my hardware rather than knowing I'm getting nothing more out of it than I would from a PII 500. If there is no performance gain to be achieved using the extra available system resources, it makes little sense to "take advantage" of it but I find that hard to believe?
Top
 Profile  
 
sandor
 Post subject: Re: Congratulations!
PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 2:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 9:49 am
Posts: 48
Location: Philadelphia, PA, USA
superboss wrote:
Well ubuntu ended up constantly freezing on my system so it had to go. The point is I'd like the new version of NASLite to take full advantage of my hardware rather than knowing I'm getting nothing more out of it than I would from a PII 500. If there is no performance gain to be achieved using the extra available system resources, it makes little sense to "take advantage" of it but I find that hard to believe?


SImply put, a NAS is not a processor intensive device - my P4 NASLite setup can already max out my gigabit switch without coming close to taxing the CPU - there isnt much more that NAS can do - maxing out a network connection is pretty much the "prize" a NAS should be fighting for.

While i understand your point, even adding permissions and software RAID and such would not make hardware requirements very high - your AMD 4000+ is simply way more CPU than you need.
Top
 Profile  
 
superboss
 Post subject: Re: Congratulations!
PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 5:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 1:32 pm
Posts: 290
sandor wrote:
superboss wrote:
Well ubuntu ended up constantly freezing on my system so it had to go. The point is I'd like the new version of NASLite to take full advantage of my hardware rather than knowing I'm getting nothing more out of it than I would from a PII 500. If there is no performance gain to be achieved using the extra available system resources, it makes little sense to "take advantage" of it but I find that hard to believe?


SImply put, a NAS is not a processor intensive device - my P4 NASLite setup can already max out my gigabit switch without coming close to taxing the CPU - there isnt much more that NAS can do - maxing out a network connection is pretty much the "prize" a NAS should be fighting for.

While i understand your point, even adding permissions and software RAID and such would not make hardware requirements very high - your AMD 4000+ is simply way more CPU than you need.


Well I'm no expert when it comes to system resources and NAS-performance but I got the impression SMP could do some difference (I base this on a comment made my Ralph regarding my purchase of an X2 processor). If my hardware is not limiting my performance, what is?
Top
 Profile  
 
mikeiver1
 Post subject: Re: Congratulations!
PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 8:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 9:05 pm
Posts: 1688
Location: Up State NY in the USA!!!!
superboss wrote:
Well I'm no expert when it comes to system resources and NAS-performance but I got the impression SMP could do some difference (I base this on a comment made my Ralph regarding my purchase of an X2 processor). If my hardware is not limiting my performance, what is?


While I am no expert either I do know from experience that there are factors far more limiting to the performance of a disk storage system than the processor.

Your system is more than enough as far as hardware goes. There are factors which are very likely limiting and I would put money up that one of, if not thee prime factors is that both the NIC and the RAID card are sharing the same PCI bus bandwidth. The PCI bus in most consumer grade motherboards is at best good for 133MB/sec of transfer in theory. If you really wish to see what the software is truly capable of then you will need to get a server motherboard that has at least 2 PCIx interfaces and use cards that have a PCIx interface that runs at at least 66MHz and preferably 100MHz.

Something to also keep in mind is that a RAID5 array will be far slower on the writes and a bit slower on the reads than say a RAID0 or RAID10 array due to the need for extra read and write cycles for each write of data to the array due to parity needs. You can negate some of the performance loss by "Tunning" the array via cluster sizing, and write cache settings just to name a couple of things. Keep in mind though that allot of RAID cards will not do much caching unless they are battery backed on board.

Mike
Top
 Profile  
 
superboss
 Post subject: Re: Congratulations!
PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 3:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 1:32 pm
Posts: 290
I AM using a motherboard with two PCI-X slots and its not sharing IRQ with the integrated nic. That is the primary reason I bought this motherboard as I was told that was probably the cause of the issues I had on my initial setup...
Top
 Profile  
 
sandor
 Post subject: Re: Congratulations!
PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 8:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 9:49 am
Posts: 48
Location: Philadelphia, PA, USA
superboss wrote:
... If my hardware is not limiting my performance, what is?


i think your hardware *is* the limiting factor.


what throughput do you get from a single Samsung hard drive via NASLite?

looking around the web, they seem to be bottom/middle of the pack in terms of performance, and typically have slow access times.
Top
 Profile  
 
superboss
 Post subject: Re: Congratulations!
PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 9:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 1:32 pm
Posts: 290
Image.

Thats not really slow if you compare it with the rest of the bunch:

Code:
Hitachi DS 180GXP 8MB 120GB PATA     53,7    20,7     43,6     12,8
Hitachi DS 7K250 8MB 160GB PATA      58,2    28,0     47,0     12,9
Hitachi TS 5K100 8MB 60GB SATA       34.2    18.0     27.9     17.0
Hitachi TS 5K100 8MB 100GB SATA      40,8    16,6     30,4     18,2
Hitatchi TS E7K100 8MB 100GB PATA    54,1    26,3     43,4     16,2
Hitachi T7K250 8MB 250GB SATA2       64,5    30,1     50,8     12,7
Hitachi T7K500 16MB 500GB SATA2      73,4    35,5     60,9     14,2
IBM Deskstar 180GXP 120GB PATA       54.3    26.0     43.6     12.8
Maxtor DM8 2MB 40GB PATA             57,8    14,3     49,4     16,1
Maxtor DM9 8MB 120GB SATA            57,1    29,0     46,0     13,2
Maxtor DM9 8MB 160GB SATA            50,4     0,6      9,0     27,7
Maxtor DM Plus9 8MB 160GB PATA       74,7    34,1     61,1     15,2
Maxtor DM Plus9 2MB 80GB PATA        57,0    29,0     45,8     14,7
Maxtor DM Plus9 8MB 200GB PATA       56,6    17,1     43,2     14,8
Maxtor DM10 8MB 200GB PATA           61,7    30,0     49,7     14,3
Maxtor DM10 8MB 250GB PATA           62,0    32,0     50,9     15,7
Maxtor DM10 16MB 250GB SATA          61,3    42,1     53,1     16,1
Maxtor DM10 16MB 300GB SATA          61,4    32,5     50,6     14,8
Samsung P80 8MB 160GB SATA           59,1    29,0     46,5     13,8
Samsung T133 8MB 300GB PATA          59,4    29,2     47,6     15,7
Samsung P120 8MB 250GB PATA          68,2    30,8     57,7     16,3
Samsung P120 8MB 250GB SATA2         71,7    36,6     58,5     13,9 <-------------------------* MY DRIVE *-----------------------------------
Samsung T166 16MB 320GB SATA2        84,4    31,6     64,3     14,2
Samsung T166 16MB 500GB SATA2        83,3    38,8     65,1     14,2
Seagate Barracuda IV 80GB PATA       40.6    23.5     35.6     14.9
Seagate 7200.7 2MB 80GB PATA         56,0    28,9     43,9     15,7
Seagate 7200.7 8MB 120GB PATA        55,8    28,5     44,0     14,7
Seagate 7200.7 8MB 160GB SATA        51,1    17,5     40,1     12,7
Seagate 7200.7 8MB 200GB SATA        61,8    30,6     50,3     12,9
Seagate 7200.8 2MB 160GB PATA        55,9     2,8     43,9     15,2
Seagate 7200.8 8MB 250GB SATA        68,6    33,5     55,8     15,7
Seagate 7200.9 8MB 160GB SATA        56.8    21.4     43.9     13.4
Seagate 7200.9 8MB 200GB SATA2       63,1    32,3     50,9     15,9
Seagate 7200.9 8MB 400GB USB2        21,3    19,9     20,9     15,3
Seagate 7200.10 8MB 80GB SATA2       73.7    34.8     59,7     14,7
Seagate 7200.10 8MB 250GB SATA2      78,0    38,5     63,3     13,4
Seagate 7200.10 16MB 320GB SATA2     79,8    37,5     63,5     13,8
WD Raptor 16MB 36GB SATA             84,8    54,8     74,6      7,9
WD Raptor 16MB 74GB SATA             83,4    44,8     71,9      8,4
WD Raptor 16MB 150GB SATA            84,9    54,5     74,3      8,1
WD 1600JD 8MB 160GB SATA             52,5    30,1     45,1     13,8
WD 2000JB 8MB 200GB PATA             58,1    34,1     49,5     13,6
WD 2500JS 8MB 250GB SATA2            62,2    34,2     53,1     18,7
WD 2500KS 16MB 250GB SATA2           62,1    28,4     52,2     13,7
WD 3200KS 16MB 320GB SATA2           65,9    37,7     57,3     13,4
WD 4000KD 16MB 400GB SATA            62,0    35,2     54,2     13,1


Besides I'd be happy if they provided the initial 70MB/s I get but its the inconsistency and jumpiness in numbers that is the main problem. I added another 2GB of ram to see if the initial numbers were simply the RAM buffer filling up but that does not seem to be the case as the extra RAM had little or no impact at all. This should go into the NASLite 2 USB section anyway :)
Top
 Profile  
 
superboss
 Post subject: Re: Congratulations!
PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2008 6:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 1:32 pm
Posts: 290
BTW as for requests for future incarnations of NASLite I would love to see support for ARECA controllers.
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
  [ 12 posts ] 

Board index » v2.x NanoNAS » NanoNAS

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group