1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Spec me a NAS!

Discussion in 'Storage Drives' started by Meatball, 30 Mar 2009.

  1. rOAdeh

    Hitman

    Joined: 3 Dec 2002

    Posts: 618

    Location: Sydney, Australia

    I'm considering the NAS route as well but I'm going to want it on 24/7 (or maybe scheduled to shut down overnight) so that I have instant streaming access to files and can download torrents while I'm at work etc.

    The only thing is I obviously don't want it to suck up a lot of power and it needs to be silent (or as close as possible).. An old PC seems like the way forward for flexibility (large readymade NAS solutions seem ridiculously expensive), but getting them to run really quietly and also cheaply adds up quickly as you end up spending a fortune in silent fans, isolation and passive heatsinks etc

    I'm still torn which way to go as I know in the long term that I'm going to want 3-4TB minimum (which quickly fills up when ripping BR disks!)
     
  2. wombraider

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 31 Jan 2007

    Posts: 966

    Location: N.I.

    I use a Qnap 409 along with 4 x 1G drives

    It does everything you are asking about and the speed is really good to.
     
  3. smids

    Soldato

    Joined: 18 Dec 2004

    Posts: 6,660

    Location: London/Kent

    Well, my NAS computer runs on relatively low power - E2220, Intel G31 mobo, 1GB RAM, 1 laptop HDU for OS and 2 seagate 320gb's for storage. All runs at 60w idling, however I'm looking at ways of powering down the disks, whereby it would run at 47W idle - not bad for a full PC!
     
  4. mod1fied

    Hitman

    Joined: 11 Dec 2007

    Posts: 639

    Location: Borstal, Kent

    Ive been looking at building an ITX based NAS, perhaps source a 10-20W MB with either a Via/Atom based CPU and use it just for storage :), or go for the Zotac board and drop a LGA775 on it :) only cost around £300.
     
  5. wonko

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 21 Jul 2008

    Posts: 1,478

    Location: Outside the asylum

    I've just put an atom-based server together that draws 65W with 5x1TB WD Green disks spinning, dropping to about 45W when they spin down. When I did the rough sums it worked out at about £50 per year to use 50W 24x7, and I figured that it wasn't worth paying more to try to save a few more watts.
    Noise is more of a nuisance, and I've had trouble finding a small NAS-style case that takes 6+ HDDs and has vibration damping mounts. If anyone has any ideas...
     
  6. smids

    Soldato

    Joined: 18 Dec 2004

    Posts: 6,660

    Location: London/Kent

    See that's not that much better than my spec, yet mine will absolutely flatten it hands down in anything which requires any CPU power. This is why I didn't go Atom - the boards aren't mature enough and don't have low power chipsets, which waste all of the energy savings of the processor. Try adding a mail server or bittorrent client whilst simultanously serving files, perhaps with a virus scanner and the system will struggle. Anyway, I'm not lambasting your choice - I faced this predicament myself, however it was so much cheaper to build a desktop using normal parts - it would take many years to recoup the additional money spent on the more expensive parts so for me it wasn't worth it. I may add additional capabilities too which might unfortunately kill the poor Atom.

    Even better at the moment is a 780G AMD board with an X2 5050e (45W TDP) or similar. Those things are as low powered as Atoms (systemwide) and are far more powerful.
     
  7. hernaldo

    Hitman

    Joined: 8 Feb 2008

    Posts: 827

    They use 3 times as much power actually. 45w Vs 15w (I know you said systemwide, but the Atom chipsets aren't that inefficient, and the 780G chipset is hardly the pinnacle of efficency and defo not suitable for a NAS)
     
    Last edited: 2 Apr 2009
  8. wonko

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 21 Jul 2008

    Posts: 1,478

    Location: Outside the asylum

    Yep, all valid comments, and it was a very close call between the atom and a gigabyte 780 board +5050e CPU.
    The current intel atom boards are let down by the chipset which needs a fan (and a noisy one at full speed) while the CPU itself doesn't need one... On the plus side it has proved rock solid so far. I'm not after anything doing anything CPU intensive so it suits my needs. And if my needs change it gives an excuse to buy some new toys ;).
    I've got a couple more HDDs adding to my 45W, but the difference isn't much. I also suspect that my psu is taking a fair chunk of that as they are less efficient at low output. PicoPSUs look interesting but even if they saved 10W (seems unlikely) it would take 5 or 6 years to recoup the expense.
     
  9. errata

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 15 Apr 2004

    Posts: 1,881

    So how much power does a ReadyNAS use vs a PC (atom or otherwise) ?

    If 50W at idle costs £50 per year that sounds like quite a lot for no works.
     
  10. Tomsk

    Soldato

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 5,233

    Location: Overground, underground..

    My AMD based PC server with 8 HDs was drawing ~160W @idle(ish).
    It now has 10 HDs, but will only be on an average of 12 hours a day, when I've finished setting it up, transferring files etc.
     
  11. wonko

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 21 Jul 2008

    Posts: 1,478

    Location: Outside the asylum

    I guess it will largely depend on the model. I just found some specs for a RND4475 which is over £1000 for 3TB, and it states 55W. If this is the maximum including 4 HDDs then it's only 10W or so less than my atom-based PC which for the same amount of storage would cost half that of the NAS.

    I suppose £50 per year is quite a bit of electricity, but if you then think about how much a lot of people on this forum must spend on upgrading hardware just for the fun of it, it's probably one of the cheaper parts of the addiction.
     
  12. celliott

    Mobster

    Joined: 21 Jun 2004

    Posts: 2,772

    Location: Berkshire

    I've used a Qnap TS-209 and also a Tagan Icybox and with 2 disks in RAID-1 they do 25 - 30M/s over gigabit ethernet.

    Yes its not 90M/s like you might get from a PC but its plenty good enough.
     
  13. Alfie786

    Gangster

    Joined: 23 Aug 2004

    Posts: 369

    Location: London

    which one would someone go for if you hd 1.5tb x2 the Qnap the netgear or the icybox but hear that icybox has issues!! quite a bit...

    can these 1.5tb be spanned or put in Raid 0 ??? these arethe ones im considering wonder if it helps t choose which to get of you too .
     
  14. poltergeist666

    Gangster

    Joined: 21 Feb 2003

    Posts: 381

    Location: Southampton

    Can vouch for the Qnap - have a 509 Pro with 5 x Samsung 1TB drives - it's quiet, fast and a well built unit, with decent software setup.
     
  15. Bry

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 24 Jul 2005

    Posts: 1,377

    I would heavily recommend going with Windows Home Server it is an excellent product. Far far superior to freenas imho.

    If you are considering a Qnap 509 may I draw your attention to the Tranquil BBS2 (barebones2).
    It is essentially a Qnap 509 but without an operating system and about half the price. You can pickup WHS for about £70 or go with freenas. Again still saving a lot of money.

    I have the tranquil myself and find it to be excellent
     
  16. owenbglos

    Associate

    Joined: 1 Jun 2009

    Posts: 85

    im impressed with my 2tb wester digital mate must admit its qucik to read and write and was very very easy to set up
     
  17. drak3

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 26 Jan 2006

    Posts: 1,509

    Anyone tried the Synology units? What's the rate on those?
     
  18. poltergeist666

    Gangster

    Joined: 21 Feb 2003

    Posts: 381

    Location: Southampton

    Must admit, that looks a nice piece of kit!

    I bought my 509 used for £400 -but would have definately considered the Tranquil if this hadn't been the case!

    It would be interesting to see what the OP ended up with -