You used to be able to install Twonky to the ReadyNAS line of products although I never used it. It comes with a version of the linux wizd media server preinstalled and this works well with my linkplayer2. In fact I was using wizd before I bought the readynas and was surprised to see the same screen the first time I pulled it up. I'd check the readynas forum first and make sure it runs well for most users.
I'm actually just using the readynas nv+ to archive my movies and shows now, but purchased a 1TB WD HDD to put in my pentium-m server and will be using that to serve media files 24/7. The readynas will only get powered on occasionally to restore files & hold everything. I only have 1.3 TB of space on my readynas nv+, so most of my favorite movies and shows will easily fit a 1 TB HDD. The electricity cost of running 1 large drive in a pentium-m server, will be much less than leaving a 4 drive NAS box running 24/7. Plus it's the new WD drive that alters it's spin speed varying from 5400-7200 as demand increases. It's supposed to use a lot less power. lopaka Brian Weeden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Right now I'm using the TwonkyMediaServer to serve content from my HTPC to my D-link DSM-520 and it works beautifully, as long as the whole browser election thing isn't disrupting the entire network. Would I be able to install that on the ReadyNAS? Or would I need an actual full windows install? The 520 is listed as supported on the Infrant Wiki but I found the D-link media server software to be horrible and the Twonky one much better. The ReadyNAS NV+ with no drives is about $900 on Newegg as a "sale" price. They are $1,050 on Netgear's site. Figure you need another $1200 for 4 1 TB drives. Pretty pricey for just a plain box, could build a full windows home server for that much. I have been using IP addresses to map all my shares for a while now as well and it works fine, except for random network-wide drop outs which I am pretty sure are related to browser elections. ----- Brian Weeden Technical Consultant Secure World Foundation On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Robert Martin Jr. wrote: > Thankfully I bought my ReadyNAS NV while Infrant was still in charge. Now > that Netgear owns them they raised prices on everything without actually > improving any of the technology. I paid $550 2 years ago and got upgraded to > an NV+ about a month ago when my NV started having problems. They cost twice > as much now ??? > > It generally works very well as long as you're using supported hard > drives. I serve media to 2 Xbox media centers, 2 computers and one network > DVD player (Avel Linkplayer2) > > I have run in to similar issues with the name resolution, so I only use IP > addresses when mapping drives and shares. I have no MAC experience so I > can't be much help there. > > I also have a DLink DSM-G600 but although it works well as a standard NAS, > the media server is not recognized by my network DVD player. The XBMCs can > use it fine by just mapping the shares. I believe the DSM-G600 only supports > a 500GB drive though, although some users have higher capacity drives > running fine. > > lopaka > > Brian Weeden wrote: I've posted here before about > this problem and really haven't solved > anything yet. For those that haven't heard my ranting before, the issue > with the Windows on a peer-to-peer network and browsing. If you have a > server that is actually managing a domain, that server will maintain a > list > of which computer name is associated with which IP address on the network. > So if I tell my machine to connect to "media" the domain server says "oh > that's actually 192.169.0.4" or whatever. If there isn't a domain > controller (ie the network is just peers) one machine will maintain the > browser list of all the mappings. If something happens, the computer will > force an election and the new machine will be the browser. > > Sounds great in theory but my experience it has been absolutely horrible. > Over the last few years I have had off and on problems, ranging from > simple > annoyances like not being able to see any machines listed under "My > Network > Places" to massive network slowdowns and inability to transfer even 20MB > files due to browser elections dropping connections. I have tried many > solutions with the current being to change the registry in all my machines > save one to never maintain the browser list and disabling the browser > service as well. The one machine which is my media server has that same > registry key set to "always" and has the service running. > > But recently I've found another issue - my wife's MacBook has started to > participate in this whole mess. A couple of days ago I was going through > the event viewer trying to figure out why the network had gone to hell and > saw an entry saying that the MacBook had denied access to an IP and forced > an election. Getting the MacBook to stop doing that is beyond my limited > OSX knowledge. > > So, now I'm looking for solutions. I need to rebuild my HTPC / media > server > and wanted to see if I could find a solution in that. I really want to > (try) and cut down on the power used so I was thinking of replacing the > whole thing with a NAS box and a small set top like an Apple TV or D-Link > box. I was doing some research and noticed that all these NAS solutions > support different filesharing protocols, like CIFS, SMB, AFP, NFS, etc. > What's the different between these and the normal protocols that are used > when you share a drive within Windows? Do they result in more efficient > use > of the network bandwidth? > > Why are the ReadyNAS boxes so darn expensive (almost $1000 on Newegg for > diskless NV+)? What are other good options? I need something that will > support at least 3 TB of storage (ie 4x 1TB SATA drives) in RAID 5 and > preferably something can I can daisy chain another to to hit my goal of 6 > TB > (ie 4x8 1TB SATA in RAID 5). > > Aside from setting up a domain controller, can anyone think of other ways > to > help with my problem of the master browser issue and overall poor network > performance? Would running a Windows Home Server box help at all? Or > would > a *nix server be better? I have some experience with *nix (specifically > Ubuntu)? > > ----- > Brian Weeden > Technical Consultant > Secure World Foundation > >
