NASLite Network Attached Storage

www.serverelements.com
Task-specific simplicity with low hardware requirements.
It is currently Sun May 04, 2025 8:57 am

View unanswered posts | View active topics


Board index » v2.x NASLite Products » NASLite-2

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]



Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 2
  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
dimension
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 12:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 1:50 pm
Posts: 604
Location: Texas, USA
Quote:
In the web hosting circle, it is well known Linux is faster than FreeBSD (this may well be the reason NasLite performs better than Windows and FreeNAS in this test). However, FreeBSD is the more stable under heavy load. At certain point (dozens, or hundreds concurrent users), all NAS OS will have difficulty to handle the load, but without testing, nobody knows when that happens. The RAM usage mentioned above may well become a problem for Naslite under heavy load.


Where do you get your facts from dude? You may have to clue IBM and DELL that Linux is the wrong OS for their server. I'm sure they'd love to know in advance that stability will be a problem under load! :roll:
Top
 Profile  
 
fordem
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 12:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:22 am
Posts: 144
Quote:
That's why I suggested to have a NasLite Pro (with multiple CPU support and higher max RAM usage) targeting small businesses.


For NASLite to target the SMB market, it's going to need more than just support for more RAM and multiple CPUs - access control is mandatory - without it your target market will probably be limited to the enthusiast looking for a place to store his AV collections.

More management tools - RAID management & UPS monitoring - would also be at the top of my list.

Quote:
You may have to clue IBM and DELL that Linux is the wrong OS for their server. I'm sure they'd love to know in advance that stability will be a problem under load


IBM & Dell support linux on their hardware because of user demand, not because they feel that it is in any way superior to any other operating system, and in fact, it might be very enlightening if you were to find out what level of support is available from them for linux as compared to the other operating systems that they do support.
Top
 Profile  
 
dimension
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 1:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 1:50 pm
Posts: 604
Location: Texas, USA
Quote:
IBM & Dell support linux on their hardware because of user demand, not because they feel that it is in any way superior to any other operating system, and in fact, it might be very enlightening if you were to find out what level of support is available from them for linux as compared to the other operating systems that they do support.


No argument there. My comment was strictly in the context of Linux vs. FreeBSD as an alternative. And yes, IBM and DELL respond to marked demand for Linux. I wonder why that is?

Linux has grown in popularity strictly due to it's own merit. Likewise, FreeBSD has fallen behind strictly due to it's own merit. But that is another argument entirely.

I think that my responce was clearly targeted :lol:
Top
 Profile  
 
Ralph
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 4:58 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 4:01 pm
Posts: 801
Location: ServerElements
johnqh wrote:
Since 2.x has the web interface, it uses more RAM to run Apache and PHP. That could may a difference if the RAM is limited (64MB? 128MB?)



When did NASLite v1.x or v2.x start using Apache and PHP?
Top
 Profile  
 
Tony
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:11 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 4:11 pm
Posts: 1771
Location: Server Elements
Quote:
Since 2.x has the web interface, it uses more RAM to run Apache and PHP. That could may a difference if the RAM is limited (64MB? 128MB?)

- A base Apache binary is about 500K
- A base PHP binary is about 1.1M
- NASLite uses WebFS as the HTTP export.
- A base WebFS binary is about 40K
- WebFS != Apache+PHP

Take a look at page 23 of the NASLite-2 Installation and Administration manual for details. :wink:
Top
 Profile  
 
dimension
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 3:27 pm 
Offline

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

http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php? ... _id=507589
Top
 Profile  
 
johnqh
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:28 pm
Posts: 26
dimension wrote:
What a joke! :roll:

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


I didn't post that one

regarding freebsd vs linux, go to webhostingtalk.com and do some search

on a seperate note, go to webhostingtalk.com and search for reviews of different file systems under heavy load (millions of files) - ext2 and ext3 cannot handle as well as ufs. xfs and reiser are better.
Top
 Profile  
 
johnqh
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:28 pm
Posts: 26
Tony wrote:
Quote:
Since 2.x has the web interface, it uses more RAM to run Apache and PHP. That could may a difference if the RAM is limited (64MB? 128MB?)

- A base Apache binary is about 500K
- A base PHP binary is about 1.1M
- NASLite uses WebFS as the HTTP export.
- A base WebFS binary is about 40K
- WebFS != Apache+PHP

Take a look at page 23 of the NASLite-2 Installation and Administration manual for details. :wink:


Thanks for clearing it up.

I don't have 2.0 (still waiting for the HDD version) so I could only make guesses.

But I was talking about RAM usage, not footprint. Any info on how much more RAM v2.0 uses?
Top
 Profile  
 
Ralph
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:30 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 4:01 pm
Posts: 801
Location: ServerElements
johnqh wrote:
But I was talking about RAM usage, not footprint. Any info on how much more RAM v2.0 uses?


http://www.serverelements.com/naslite-2-cdd.php
Top
 Profile  
 
dimension
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 2:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 1:50 pm
Posts: 604
Location: Texas, USA
Some numbers of my own (PassMark Performance Test 6.0):

SERVER Hardware: PC-Chips M789CG mobo with onboard 800mhz C3, 256Mb DDR, UDMA(100), VIA NIC (Nice low end board/cpu combo for $50)
CLIENT-1: e-Machines T1801, 256Mb, Win2K Pro
CLIENT-2: ACER TravelMate 2450, WinXP Home
NETWORK: SMC 1016DT Switch (10/100)

:arrow: SERVER (WIN2K SERVER SP2) <-> CLIENT-1
Sequential Read: 9.9
Sequential Write: 9.8
Random Seek R/W: 1.81
Disk Mark: 77.9
PassMark: 15.6

:arrow: SERVER (WIN2K SERVER SP2) <-> CLIENT-2
Sequential Read: 9.7
Sequential Write: 10.3
Random Seek R/W: 1.81
Disk Mark: 79.0
PassMark: 15.8

:arrow: SERVER (WIN2K SERVER SP2) - LOCAL DRIVE
Sequential Read: 29.9
Sequential Write: 29.5
Random Seek R/W: 1.77
Disk Mark: 221.4
PassMark: 44.3

:arrow: SERVER (NASLITE-2 USB v2.02) <-> CLIENT-1
Sequential Read: 10.4
Sequential Write: 9.6
Random Seek R/W: 8.6
Disk Mark: 103.1
PassMark: 20.6

:arrow: SERVER (NASLITE-2 USB v2.02) <-> CLIENT-2
Sequential Read: 10.3
Sequential Write: 10.7
Random Seek R/W: 9.5
Disk Mark: 110.6
PassMark: 22.1

So those are my CIFS numbers. I'm not sure why win2k does so crappy on the random seeks since all board drivers from the drivers CD are installed.
Top
 Profile  
 
pszilard
PostPosted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:01 am
Posts: 99
Location: Sydney, Australia
Ralph wrote:
snip 8<

I first tested Windows XP Pro sharing a volume. I had to test this one about 5 times because I didn't believe the numbers. Windows XP Pro had extremely low write numbers, I would have to blame this on a poor driver, which was supplied by Dell. The reads seemed pretty satisfactory and I also noticed that my copy of Windows XP was only using 1 processor, not both, I apparently didn't have the multiprocessor version/license etc.

snip 8<


Don't know if this has been mentioned before, but XP Pro always supports 2 cpus. You can't have one that doesn't, because such a version doesn't exist.

However your mother board BIOS must be set to enable Hyperthreading, or multi core, or whatever :D .

Cheers
Top
 Profile  
 
Ralph
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:59 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 4:01 pm
Posts: 801
Location: ServerElements
I just went back and looked at the box, When I launched the Windows Task Manager and looked at the Performance tab, I missed the fact the CPU history was segmented for the multiple processors, I only was paying attention to the CPU usage bar. So Windows was in fact using multiple cpu's.

At any rate, this is even better for NASLite, since I know for a fact it only uses one cpu 8)
Top
 Profile  
 
dimension
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 3:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 1:50 pm
Posts: 604
Location: Texas, USA
Some more numbers by Kodiak#1 :!:

http://www.cecsllc2005.com/NasTest.html
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 2
  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Board index » v2.x NASLite Products » NASLite-2

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group