Newisys NA-1400 NAS Appliance
Posted: Sun May 07, 2006 7:43 pm
Discussions about Silent Computing
https://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/
https://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=31287
Not to be picky, But it's not a power supplyMikeC wrote:Much thanks to Newisys for the opportunity to examine this power supply.
Truly diskless workstations have been possible with linux for years.we've never seen it done before
Unfortunately, the box has been sent back to Newisys. Plus, I don't have anywhere near enough experience with Linux for it to be something I could knock off in a day or two. That would be quite an undertaking, and I think my efforts are best spent elsewhere.Yahoolian wrote:A follow-up article using Linux or perhaps some other OS capable of easily remote booting would be interesting.
That one looked nice in theory.. but when I noticed the retail price it gave me hiccups.valnar wrote:The best NAS box in this price range is the Infrant ReadyNAS. It's the one to get.
Robert
Well, if you went with software RAID. With any hardware RAID card that has the same functionality of online expansion, not so. The price of the bare box at $650 is quite worth it for the functionality it gives, and it takes less than 60 watts to power with four drives. I suppose it depends on your priorities. If you want something small, quiet, low powered, easy to setup and "just works", it's the best in it's class (price range).Ackelind wrote: That one looked nice in theory.. but when I noticed the retail price it gave me hiccups.
Let's just say that I could build myself a fully functioning and almost high performing computer for the price. That price was without the drives even.
I seriously doubt this unless you give me some hard numbers. USB was designed as asynchronous bus that is cheap to implement, which means that in reality it's hard to get transfer speeds near the theoretical maximum.defaultluser wrote:Best of all, performance is MUCH better than any of these NAS devices
Why does/would ethernet have higher latency?Devonavar wrote:I suppose USB storage is an option, but I don't think - USB 2 = 480 Mbps; GigE = 1000 Mbps (latency is worse though)
Why would you not go with Linux software RAID?valnar wrote:Well, if you went with software RAID.
Not completely true, it assumes the network is idle.zds wrote:there is dedicated cabling between any two points (remember, USB uses bus)
1500m?and it's built to work reliably over distances few orders of magnitude greater than USB (5m vs. 1500m).
Especially considering this product almost certainly uses Linux software RAID anyway...Olaf van der Spek wrote:Why would you not go with Linux software RAID?valnar wrote:Well, if you went with software RAID.
I believe their CPU has hardware RAID, although I'm not sure.IsaacKuo wrote:Especially considering this product almost certainly uses Linux software RAID anyway...Olaf van der Spek wrote:Why would you not go with Linux software RAID?valnar wrote:Well, if you went with software RAID.
I said *cabling* is dedicated.. This means in each piece of copper only two chips are talking to each other, while they might transit data for several pieces of software. USB on the other hand is bus, so there might be multiple devices talking over the same copper. Even if there is just one device in each end, the protocol still is built to support multiple and thus is not optimal for hi-speed point-to-point communication.Olaf van der Spek wrote:Not completely true, it assumes the network is idle.zds wrote:there is dedicated cabling between any two points (remember, USB uses bus)
Hmm, maybe I'm wrong about this, I don't have any hard data to support it. I was basing it on my subjective impressions. I find that USB drives don't have the lag that networked drives do. I notice that it generally takes a second or two to open a networked directory, but that second or two is not there with a USB drive.Olaf van der Spek wrote:Why does/would ethernet have higher latency?Devonavar wrote:I suppose USB storage is an option, but I don't think - USB 2 = 480 Mbps; GigE = 1000 Mbps (latency is worse though)
I guess the reason is NetBIOS protocol used by Windows shared directories. It's frankly quite abysmal performance-wise.Devonavar wrote:I notice that it generally takes a second or two to open a networked directory, but that second or two is not there with a USB drive.
That's weird...I don't experience that delay on most shares, whether the file server is Windows or Linux. At work, there are a few file servers where there are big delays when browsing to a directory within it, though. I don't know what causes it but it sure is annoying and sluggish.Devonavar wrote:I was basing it on my subjective impressions. I find that USB drives don't have the lag that networked drives do. I notice that it generally takes a second or two to open a networked directory, but that second or two is not there with a USB drive.
Ah, I must be blaming the wrong thing then. Are there any alternatives to NetBIOS?zds wrote:I guess the reason is NetBIOS protocol used by Windows shared directories. It's frankly quite abysmal performance-wise.
On a little box using a xscale proccessor then hardware raid would be faster.. But, beleive or not, generally on a PC with at least a semi-modern proccessor Linux software raid is faster. Actually can be very much faster.valnar wrote:I believe their CPU has hardware RAID, although I'm not sure.IsaacKuo wrote:Especially considering this product almost certainly uses Linux software RAID anyway...Olaf van der Spek wrote: Why would you not go with Linux software RAID?
Robert
Not for Windows. It's your best choice.Devonavar wrote:Ah, I must be blaming the wrong thing then. Are there any alternatives to NetBIOS?zds wrote:I guess the reason is NetBIOS protocol used by Windows shared directories. It's frankly quite abysmal performance-wise.