NAS vs. File Server

1ddqd

Here's what I've got for my file server atm:

P4 2.66ghz w/533mhz FSB
1.5gb PC3200 RAM
BFG 6800GS AGP - soon to be PCI graphics
400W Dynex (rebranded Antec) PSU
4x500gb Drives (2 WD, 1 Seagate, 1 Maxtor)

Now, according to some wattage calculators, this system needs about 300W to operate. My main concern here is speed / power usage (read: speed over power usage). I have been told the system uses too much power when on and I need to turn it off when not in use.

Well, I store downloads here and these run 24/7. So, a NAS box is the next logical choice. The price range I have is around $200-350 for the box. I will *probably* be using a 4-drive enclosure, but I can make do with a 2-drive for now.

Current thoughts:

$350: D-Link DNS 343
$359: Qnap TS-209
$279: Thecus N2100
$214: ZyXEL NSA220

According to this chart (SmallNetBuilder), my best performer is the Zyxel, then the D-Link.

Now, given my budget, I *could* build a small ITX PC that uses 4 SATA ports and a RAID chip. Here's the build:

69.99 1x Intel BOXD945GCLF - Intel Atom 230
25.98 2x Scythe S-FLEX 120mm Case Fan
20.99 1x CORSAIR XMS2 1GB (2 x 512MB)
99.96 4x ZALMAN ZM-2HC2 Heatpipe HDD Cooler
35.99 1x SeaSonic SS-300ES 300W PSU
22.99 1x Thermaltake CL-P0372 92mm CPU Cooler

$275ish before shipping

Notice: no case included in the cost of the PC option - I'll build this myself. Any thought on which will be more efficient with power and yet still provide the speed I'm looking for? Sorry for the wall of text:

Long story short: should I build a small NAS PC box or should I just buy a NAS system?

PeregrineFalcon

Didn't we already have this conversation? But I digress.

"Now, according to some wattage calculators, this system needs about 300W to operate."
Most online wattage calculators don't know WTF they're talking about. Actual wattage drawn by a loaded OC'd Q6600 system is around 300W - I doubt you're burning that much juice just idling.

Any reason your ITX system is spec'd out with a P4? You don't need one.

What you could do, instead of building a new machine, is try to underclock your current one. Drop the FSB as low as you can to underclock everything, making your CPU chew less power. Swap out that video card (I think I said that last time) for something less power-hungry. AGP or PCI even, get a five-dollar special.

midgetspy

I recently switched from a Dlink DNS-323 to a NAS PC and I vastly prefer the NAS PC. The problem I had with the DNS-323 was that it runs the OS on an extremely limited embedded system, and because of the very slow CPU this limits the transfer speed dramatically. Transferring files to my NAS at 70MB/s is SO much better than the Dlink which maxed out at 12 or 13. Jugding by that link you posted this is less of a problem for the DNS-343, but if you transfer many files this might be a consideration.

1ddqd

We did cover this before, but things have changed a bit (namely; power is a bigger concern and money for toys isn't...go figure).

The card is coming in the mail (PCI) and the current proc is a 478 P4...hot.

The 300W is if the CPU is at 85%. I realize that idle will bring this number down but I'm looking at worst case scenario. For the majority of the time, CPU usage will most likely be at or around 30% (incoming torrents/outgoing file transfers/read).

The P4 3.6ghz is a spare I have lying around. I will *definitely* be underclocking this mofo if possible. The ITX board is most likely locked out of a lot of clock options (being Intel) but I imagine underclocking is an option.

Also, edited - the board that I have in that config is an Atom system.

mr_ekim

I was going to recommend going the NAS route due to advantages in cost and power efficiency, but after adding up the power consumption of each of your components in the Atom system, you're actually slightly better off building the file server:

Atom board + CPU (50W peak) + Fans (5W) + RAM (4W) = 59W Peak
DNS-343 - 71W Peak

Hard Drives - 10W each

I'm thinking you can actually get away with a 150W power supply, assuming a >85% efficiency.

The tradeoff is, of course, the work it will take to set it up and the OS overhead. The advantage is that you'll have a slightly faster CPU (probably not fast enough for heavy transcoding, though) and not being limited to the types of software you can use (uTorrent, Tversity/uShare, and Orb/Jinzora arn't available for NAS drives).

Hmmm.. I might have to start looking into this for myself.

Edit: I just noticed that the Intel BOXD945GCLF doesn't have a 10/100/1000 port. You could just add a gigE NIC, but it is something to think about.

PeregrineFalcon

mr_ekim wrote: »

Edit: I just noticed that the Intel BOXD945GCLF doesn't have a 10/100/1000 port. You could just add a gigE NIC, but it is something to think about.

You'd have to hang it off the PCI bus, which would probably result in some rather amusing bandwidth-related conflicts during full-duplex I/O.

Fatty McBeardo

Nas has height and reach advantage, but the file server has some pretty sick rhymes. I say file server in 5 rounds.

1ddqd

Bwahaha - lol @ thread hijack.

I didn't notice that it wasnt GigE - that's lame. I'll hold onto the file server idea till I can find me a Mini ITX with GigE...