|
NAS (Networked Attach Storage) vs eSATA vs USB vs Firewire vs (NIC) 10/100/1000 vs router vs switch ...
I'm trying to get my head around this stuff. How did it come up? I'm playing with an NAS, a Buffalo LX-XH1.0TL, 1 TB, single drive.
XFS file system. (as opposed to NTFS or FAT or EXT2/3 ...) IP of 192.168.1.64. (I once I discovered the NAS's IP, so far, I have had no need to install any software) 10/100 & or 10/100/1000 NIC, modem, router. (modem should make no difference, as its' limitations would only affect Internet speeds? router does matter, cause its' 10/100 ports are what the NAS & my NIC are connected to, with the 10/100 being the limiting factor in transfer speeds) Browse IP with my browser, & (from within the NAS interface) I can add directories. In Windows, map a drive letter to said directory. Copy files back & forth, delete ... works as expected.
Except, it is slow. Now slow is not an end-all. But when you're copying say, 385 GB of data (ok, you got me, porn) to the drive, it is slow. I was seeing (perhaps) 7.5 MB/s. Talking, who knows, 18 hours or so to complete the copy.
Throughput seems variable. File size matters. More efficient to transfer single large files compared to multiple small files. Computer "HP" (horsepower) seems to make a difference too. Better throughput on faster computer compared to slower computer (less HP).
Assuming I was not looking to replace modem/router, if I were to install a 1 GB (dumb) switch, connected to modem/router, with NAS & computers connected though the switch (& assuming computers had 1 GB NICs - though not a given), then I should see substantially greater throughput from the NAS compared to exiting 10/100 setup?
Is the NAS, should the NAS be resource intensive? Sitting at computer1, & set up a copy from computer2 to NAS, & clearly, at times I was being impacted in my (computer1) operations (even in simple things, like editing a file in notepad, hosted on computer2). (Computer1 & 2 are old, antiquated you might say. On a more modern computer, only accessing the NAS directly, I haven't noticed an impact.)
BUFFALO LS-XH1.0TL 1TB LinkStation Pro Network Attached Storage http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822165154
Newegg: network switch gigabit http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=40000030%20600052097&IsNodeId=1&Description=network%20switch%20gigabit&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=20
Now if I were to forgo a NAS & go with something USB or eSATA & connected to those from networked computers? Should be able to do that, yes? Connected locally, should be OK. eSATA obviously preferred. But how about a networked computer connected to the same? (Seem to recall me noting in these parts that accessing a USB drive directly across a network was slow. That it would have been faster to copy from computer1 to computer2 & then to USB rather then from computer1 to computer2.USB direct.)
Does any of this make any sense as opposed to simply sticking another internal SATA drive into one of the networked computers & simply sharing that? 10/100/1000 switch would still make sense, assuming that the computers had 1 GB NICs? But even at that, again speed is relative, & 385 GB file transfers are not the norm. Actually that is abnormal. So if I'm copying a 1 GB file & it takes 1 minute instead of 18 seconds, I'll survive ...
http://www.lyberty.com/tech/terms/usb.html
http://www.newertech.com/Static/articles/article_macenstein_eSATA.html
USB 2.0, FireWire, Or eSATA: Which Interface Should You Use? http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/usb-firewire-esata,2534.html
Ethernet speed - aka "fakegigabit" (old article, though still relevant) http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/22517-42-ethernet-speed
NAS Performance Comparison Charts - File Copy Write Performance - SmallNetBuilder http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/component/option,com_nas/Itemid,190
The LinkStation Gets its Mojo Back: Buffalo Linkstation Pro XHL Reviewed http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/nas/nas-reviews/30760-the-linkstation-gets-its-mojo-back-buffalo-linkstation-pro-xhl-reviewed (Note that this is now a discontinued item. Similar are available at Newegg.) -------------------------------------- BANK OF AMERICA.COM ONLINE BANKING SUCKS IN THE HUGEST WAY IMAGINABLE
Newegg.com's new image gallery layout sucks in the hugest way imaginable too ! And now they're using JavaScript to "turn" pages to boot ! SUCKS
|