[brachiator]

Hi all -- any recommendations for a network storage hard drive? I'd like it to have:

• 120GB+ capacity;
• gigabit ethernet;
• additional USB 2 or FW jacks;
• a print server; and
• under $300;

I'm grateful for whatever recommendations you all have. I have been looking at a couple that meet these criteria from Buffalo, but I've never heard of this brand.

[israces]

I'm looking for about the same thing, and the closest I've found is the SimpleTech SimpleShare. I looked at the Buffalo ones as well but don't think that they're what I'm looking for. What else have you come across aside from those?

Originally Posted by brachiator

Hi all -- any recommendations for a network storage hard drive? I'd like it to have:

• 120GB+ capacity;
• gigabit ethernet;
• additional USB 2 or FW jacks;
• a print server; and
• under $300;

I'm grateful for whatever recommendations you all have. I have been looking at a couple that meet these criteria from Buffalo, but I've never heard of this brand.

[brachiator]

israces, that Simple Share looks pretty good. Thanks!

What don't you like about the Buffaloes? (Other than the price?)

I've also looked at some of the Maxtors and Western Digitals, as I recall. They all are looking to be the same other than some $50-$100 price differences...

[israces]

The SimpleShare 250GB I was looking at went on sale this weekend for only $10 more than the 160GB version, so I picked one up. I'll post more about it when I have had some more time to play with it. It took 2 seconds to set up and works fine so far though.

[pbarton]

I have been using an Iomega StorCenter 250 Dual for the last week or so. Unlike the SimpleTech, it does have gigabit ethernet. Informal tests show the speed to be just a bit faster than a Lacie d2 Firewire 400 drive. (Nowhere near the theoretical gigabit speed) It also offers dual USB ports that can also function as a printserver. The only major problem I have is the loud fan that starts up every 15 minutes. (even when there are no clients connected).

[ghporter]

There are suddenly (at least to me) a number of Storage Area Network and Network Attached Storage boxes on the market. The SimpleShare seems to be the most adaptable NASdevice, and it sure is attractively priced.

Netgear's SC101 Storage Central Network Hard Drive Enclosure claims to be a Storage Area Network device; it's supposed to be more secure and more "manageable" in terms of controlling who has access to what. I dunno...

One comment on being interested in a network drive that has a gigabit card in it: I think that the disk's throughput is going to be more in charge of data speed than moving up to a gigabit card over a 100BaseT card... I haven't moved anything up to gigabit yet; I haven't seen a need for it.

[Kristoff]

that's not correct.

WD800AB 5400 RPM drive has a 42 MB/s transfer rate on outer tracks and 24 MB/s transfer rate on inner tracks. (source)

Actual transfer results I have gotten over ethernet:

here is a simple FTP over 100 megabit:
98383679 bytes sent in 00:20 (4.47 MB/s)

here is the same file over gigabit:
98383679 bytes sent in 00:05 (16.67 MB/s)

Even with a 5400 rpm drive, you can enjoy four times the transfer speed by using gigabit over 100 megabit. The gigabit speed of 16.67 doesn't even come close to saturating the channel of this particular 5400 rpm drive's worst case inner track transfer rate.

Even the slowest one in that group would still enjoy the same boost due to buffering at the nic, and at the controller.

just my .02

[Back up 15 and punt]

Does anybody know of a reasonably priced rackmount network drive housing?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Kristoff

that's not correct.

WD800AB 5400 RPM drive has a ...

Even with a 5400 rpm drive, you can enjoy four times the transfer speed by using gigabit over 100 megabit. The gigabit speed of 16.67 doesn't even come close to saturating the channel of this particular 5400 rpm drive's worst case inner track transfer rate.

Even the slowest one in that group would still enjoy the same boost due to buffering at the nic, and at the controller.

just my .02

Very interesting. I was underestimating drive performance by quite a bit! I wonder how quickly the "consumer level" network storage products will start showing up with a gigabit option...

Thanks for the new data!

[f1000]

Isn't it more cost-effective to just build a 'Nix tower and use it as a server? Most PC motherboards allow you to hook up at least 4 drives. Many boards now come with built-in Ethernet as well.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Kristoff

that's not correct.

WD800AB 5400 RPM drive has a 42 MB/s transfer rate on outer tracks and 24 MB/s transfer rate on inner tracks. (source)

Actual transfer results I have gotten over ethernet:

here is a simple FTP over 100 megabit:
98383679 bytes sent in 00:20 (4.47 MB/s)

here is the same file over gigabit:
98383679 bytes sent in 00:05 (16.67 MB/s)

Even with a 5400 rpm drive, you can enjoy four times the transfer speed by using gigabit over 100 megabit. The gigabit speed of 16.67 doesn't even come close to saturating the channel of this particular 5400 rpm drive's worst case inner track transfer rate.

Even the slowest one in that group would still enjoy the same boost due to buffering at the nic, and at the controller.

That's not right. Something is wrong with your network. Are you running half-duplex or using a hub or something?

I've seen 9-10MB/s over 100BT and 80MBps over GigE (I believe the record over GigE is 123MB/s set by some NetBSD guys).

[brachiator]

Thanks everyone. My needs are pretty simple: the NAS is just for backup and perhaps extra music storage, and the print server so I can print over wireless. My interest in gigabit ethernet is just for forward compatability.

israces, I'll be glad to hear your experiences with the new SimpleShare. Congrats on the purchase!

[Kristoff]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Very interesting. I was underestimating drive performance by quite a bit! I wonder how quickly the "consumer level" network storage products will start showing up with a gigabit option...

Thanks for the new data!

They do...the Buffalo Technologies one has gigabit, and I think Iomega has one....both are right around a couple Franklins

[Kristoff]

Originally Posted by mduell

That's not right. Something is wrong with your network. Are you running half-duplex or using a hub or something?

I've seen 9-10MB/s over 100BT and 80MBps over GigE (I believe the record over GigE is 123MB/s set by some NetBSD guys).

My numbers were an average as reported by ftp.

So, you have quite a bit of overhead involved....first 20 bytes per packet of IP header, then 20 bytes per packet of TCP header, then FTP application header, then FTP application data.


Then the networks has 5 nodes---all of which were actively doing their own thing, email, web, gaming, etc.

Since we are talking CSMA/CD, I can imagine that there there was plenty of contention and collisions as well.

The gigabit stuff is not true gigabit as it lacks jumbo frame support.
There are two switches between the two computers, one is a D-Link dgl-4100 and the other is a Netgear GS-105.

So, there's nothing wrong with my network...this was a "real world" test---not some sterile lab "best case".

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Kristoff

My numbers were an average as reported by ftp.

So, you have quite a bit of overhead involved....first 20 bytes per packet of IP header, then 20 bytes per packet of TCP header, then FTP application header, then FTP application data.

Then the networks has 5 nodes---all of which were actively doing their own thing, email, web, gaming, etc.

Since we are talking CSMA/CD, I can imagine that there there was plenty of contention and collisions as well.

The gigabit stuff is not true gigabit as it lacks jumbo frame support.
There are two switches between the two computers, one is a D-Link dgl-4100 and the other is a Netgear GS-105.

So, there's nothing wrong with my network...this was a "real world" test---not some sterile lab "best case".

My numbers were an average as calculated using a stopwatch and the file size.

My 100BT figure was for copying files between Windows (SMB shares) boxes at a LAN party, with a number of other computers playing games on the same 24-port switch. For gigE it was between two servers, also on a network being used for other things.
On a switched network the other computers really shouldn't matter.

[mhuie]

Originally Posted by Kristoff

My numbers were an average as reported by ftp.

So, you have quite a bit of overhead involved....first 20 bytes per packet of IP header, then 20 bytes per packet of TCP header, then FTP application header, then FTP application data.

Then the networks has 5 nodes---all of which were actively doing their own thing, email, web, gaming, etc.

Since we are talking CSMA/CD, I can imagine that there there was plenty of contention and collisions as well.

The gigabit stuff is not true gigabit as it lacks jumbo frame support.
There are two switches between the two computers, one is a D-Link dgl-4100 and the other is a Netgear GS-105.

So, there's nothing wrong with my network...this was a "real world" test---not some sterile lab "best case".

Even so, your transfers are extremely slow.

I get consistent 12-14 MB/s over 100megabit to my xbox as well as other PC's. I have always gotten this speed, even with my old MS 4 port wifi router.

I get consistent 42-45 MB/s over gigabit from my Powermac to my PC.
I get consistent 68-70 MB/s over gigabit from jumbo frame enabled desktops (PC to PC).

Im using a SMC 8508T Switch.

This is through normal usage, with mail clients, browsers, etc in the background. I've got 5 boxes on my LAN

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by f1000

Isn't it more cost-effective to just build a 'Nix tower and use it as a server? Most PC motherboards allow you to hook up at least 4 drives. Many boards now come with built-in Ethernet as well.

If I needed an array of drives, or a whole bunch of storage, then you would be right. But, like most people, I can do with at most a pair of big drives. With that requirement, there's no way I could build a complete PC that would be cost-competitive with these network storage boxes.

I have been looking into this exact issue for some time, and I would need to spend considerably more than $300 to build a PC with a 250GB drive to act as network storage-it's much simpler and less expensive to buy the SimpleTech 250. Further, I can't build an inexpensive PC that's quiet and cool enough to add to my network-this is the same kind of problem I've been having with building a DVR out of a PC; no small enough, cool enough, quiet enough, affordable boxes available.

[Kristoff]

Originally Posted by mhuie

Even so, your transfers are extremely slow.

I get consistent 12-14 MB/s over 100megabit to my xbox as well as other PC's. I have always gotten this speed, even with my old MS 4 port wifi router.

I get consistent 42-45 MB/s over gigabit from my Powermac to my PC.
I get consistent 68-70 MB/s over gigabit from jumbo frame enabled desktops (PC to PC).

Im using a SMC 8508T Switch.

This is through normal usage, with mail clients, browsers, etc in the background. I've got 5 boxes on my LAN

I am gonna raise the BS flag on your numbers.

100 megabits = 12.5 megabytes so how in hell can you get 12-14 MB/s over 100megabit/s connection? It is impossible. There is too much protocol overhead to even get 12 MB/s and 14 is above 12.5 --the theoretical best case speed of raw bits.

[Kristoff]

Originally Posted by mduell

On a switched network the other computers really shouldn't matter.

How can you say that? It's a fixed throughput shared medium. Of course the other computers matter.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Kristoff

How can you say that? It's a fixed throughput shared medium. Of course the other computers matter.

A switch is not a hub. Until you're bumping into the fabric speed of the switch (which should be well above the port speed) other computers shouldn't have any impact on the transfer speed between two computers.

I'll call BS on mhuie's 14MBps over 100BT claim too.

[mhuie]

Originally Posted by mduell

A switch is not a hub. Until you're bumping into the fabric speed of the switch (which should be well above the port speed) other computers shouldn't have any impact on the transfer speed between two computers.

I'll call BS on mhuie's 14MBps over 100BT claim too.

I'm not lying. I just pulled my xbox out of the closet and ran a transfer.

Transferred: boxwin_sp1.zip 427.22 MB in 34.4 seconds at 13060.6 KB/s (12455.1 KiB/s).

I may have gotten confused between looking at the KB and KiB. It has been a while since I transferred anything through my xbox as my MCE box has replaced it. IIRC, longer transfers seem to top out even higher.

[mhuie]

Originally Posted by ghporter

If I needed an array of drives, or a whole bunch of storage, then you would be right. But, like most people, I can do with at most a pair of big drives. With that requirement, there's no way I could build a complete PC that would be cost-competitive with these network storage boxes.

I have been looking into this exact issue for some time, and I would need to spend considerably more than $300 to build a PC with a 250GB drive to act as network storage-it's much simpler and less expensive to buy the SimpleTech 250. Further, I can't build an inexpensive PC that's quiet and cool enough to add to my network-this is the same kind of problem I've been having with building a DVR out of a PC; no small enough, cool enough, quiet enough, affordable boxes available.

I beg to differ. You can easily build a full featured MATX PC with a 250GB drive in it for around $300. (AMD 2400+, 512mb, 250GB). Add another $100 (for the tuner and TV out) and you can have a extremely competent DVR PC.

If you really want to skimp, you can build a 250GB PC based NAS for less than $250 (256mb ram, no optical drive).

[mduell]

Originally Posted by mhuie

I'm not lying. I just pulled my xbox out of the closet and ran a transfer.

Transferred: boxwin_sp1.zip 427.22 MB in 34.4 seconds at 13060.6 KB/s (12455.1 KiB/s).

Google calculator says:
(427.22 MB) / (34.4 seconds) = 99.3534884 Mbps

That you're getting 99.4% of the rated line speed is absolutely incredible, and quite frankly unbeliveable unless you've done a lot of performance tuning on that setup.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by mhuie

I beg to differ. You can easily build a full featured MATX PC with a 250GB drive in it for around $300. (AMD 2400+, 512mb, 250GB). Add another $100 (for the tuner and TV out) and you can have a extremely competent DVR PC.

If you really want to skimp, you can build a 250GB PC based NAS for less than $250 (256mb ram, no optical drive).

Did you miss the "quiet" requirement I mentioned? Maybe I wasn't terribly clear about it. Sure, you can get a case/power supply to slap a mini- or microATX board into, but typically either the CPU fan will be audible from 30 feet away, or the power supply will be, or (most often) BOTH will be loud enough to be a problem, particularly in the DVR role. And to be honest, I don't relish playing with a Linux server configuration to manage everything needed to have secure and reliable network resource management, which the SimpleTech box appears to do all by itself with a simple web-based configuration tool.

[mhuie]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Did you miss the "quiet" requirement I mentioned? Maybe I wasn't terribly clear about it. Sure, you can get a case/power supply to slap a mini- or microATX board into, but typically either the CPU fan will be audible from 30 feet away, or the power supply will be, or (most often) BOTH will be loud enough to be a problem, particularly in the DVR role. And to be honest, I don't relish playing with a Linux server configuration to manage everything needed to have secure and reliable network resource management, which the SimpleTech box appears to do all by itself with a simple web-based configuration tool.

The fan noise is negligible on a mATX board, the only fans you will have going are the PS and the CPU. The cheap AMD's already require little cooling, if you really wanted to you could buy another cooler with a low fan RPM, and a quiet PS.

I used to have a MCE box behind my TV. It is not audible over the TV volume. It goes to sleep when I turn off my TV. It has a stock AMD cooler and quiet power supply. I have a fanless video card. The issue with cheap PVR boxes is not the volume, its the size that it takes in your living room.

As for a NAS software, download NASLite and you're all set.

[Kristoff]

In case you haven't seen this yet, here is the 250GB Buffalo GigE Linkstation for $244

[ghporter]

mhuie, maybe my noise tolerance is lower than yours. And it could be that I'm factoring in the time and effort to build the machine-which I certainly do not have this close to finals!

Either way, I appreciate your suggestions and (time and school allowing) I may look into the sort of setups you've described.

I had high hopes for the VIA "integrated CPU" motherboards, which required NO cooling, but they seemed to top out at 800MHz or so. However, that was a while ago, and I haven't checked back lately...

[mduell]

Originally Posted by ghporter

I had high hopes for the VIA "integrated CPU" motherboards, which required NO cooling, but they seemed to top out at 800MHz or so. However, that was a while ago, and I haven't checked back lately...

How much CPU power does a file and print server need? An 800Mhz C3 (which is about as fast as a 500Mhz P3, IIRC) should be fine unless you're trying to do RAID5 in software or something like that.

[ghporter]

I was looking at a setup that would allow me to use the same hardware to build a file server and a (separate) DVR-the TV cards I'm looking at require a much more powerful processor. That's not logical for covering either one of the two boxes, but that's the thought process.

[macfaner]

thats gonna be a toughy

[brachiator]

Originally Posted by Kristoff

In case you haven't seen this yet, here is the 250GB Buffalo GigE Linkstation for $244

Thanks, Kristoff! That's a decent price... I just ordered it.

[brachiator]

I got the Buffalo linkstation today, and I can mount it in the finder via Go > Connect to Server ...

So far, so good. But I was expecting to simply see it in the Network view in the Finder, without having to manually connect/mount? Any ideas?

Thanks! (BTW, israces, how are you connecting to the LinkShare?)

[Artanis]

Hey u guys, I have a question about this too:

Could you please recommend me an external drive full compatible with apple computers, that can be access from a LAN of Mac's?

Also it must be featured with backup options from time to time and stuff like that.
200Gb are enough.

10q

[brachiator]

Artanis, check out the SimpleShare that israces recommended near the top of the thread. it comes with Retrospect Express. You mount it via SMB, so it should be accessible from all the Macs on your LAN.

BTW, israces, I see that the SimpleShare also has to be mounted via Finder > Go > Connect to Server..., so I guess my Buffalo is not that odd!