On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 09:14 +0000, Peter Alcibiades wrote:
Do you generally think it best to make your own file server, or just buy one ready done?
I think a few years ago I would have built a PC to be the file server but I now think a typical PC is a bit power hungry to be left on 24/7 which was one of the reasons for me to get a specialised NAS.
In choosing my NAS I wanted something which:
1. Has low power consumption. 2. Supports the applications I want to run on it. 3. Is open enough to support further applications as time goes by. 4. Is neat and tidy.
I ended up with a QNAP TS-419P which is the four bay unit based on the Marvell Kirkwood (an ARM SOC). Against my criteria above:
1. This advertises low power consumption mainly due to ARM CPU and being able to spin down the hard disks when not in use.
2. I wanted a file server, a web server, an IMAP server and Squeezebox server with the possibility of supporting further digital media players. These features are available while running the supplied firmware, some built-in, other via optional packages (QPKGs).
3. As well as a comprehensive web interface the built-in firmware allows you to log in via ssh where you have a shell (of sorts, it's busybox). In addition to the official optional packages (QPKGs) this can also run packages from Unslung Linix (iPKGs). Finally if that is still not flexible enough it can be made to run Debian. Older units in this range (the Marvell Orion based ones - TS-109, TS-209 and TS-409) already have a Debian installer and it should be coming soon to the Kirkwood based units (TS-119?, TS-219, TS-419) - in the mean time there is a method for manual installation. Although the Debian port is not done by QNAP it is being done with their support.
4. This model uses hot-pluggable SATA hard disks so for four hard disks there are only two boxes - the base unit and the power supply. A similar setup with USB hard disks could well be eight to ten boxes if each hard disks needs its own PSU.
The one criteria I didn't mention above is speed though this is frequently reviewed. When I first got the unit the speed was limited by the network because my PC only had 100baseT and I was getting about 8-9 Mbytes/sec which is between a third and half the speed of a local hard disk. Upgrading the PC to gigabit Ethernet has increased the speed somewhat and I think I remember seeing about 20 Mbytes/sec which is getting close to local hard disk speed (about 25 Mbytes/sec IIRC). This mattered a lot more when transferring 1.6Tb of data from my PC than it has in daily use since.
I guess the main drawback of the TS-419 is that it is quite expensive. If you're after something cheaper I hope this was still useful in understanding the possible compromises.
Regards, Steve.