With a Gigabit network, the network speed isn't the bottleneck. The CPU
processing speed of a NAS device is. I'll bet any decent Linux server
will beat any NAS device on speed.
Jim forgot to mention that NAS doesn't mean low power neither. You can buy
NAS devices running dual core dual
aubuti wrote:
Peter;193768 Wrote:
NAS's are usually run by people who don't want to run a real 24/7
server, for whatever reason. Perhaps we should make a poll of it but
I'm betting the majority of NAS users are not running Windows. Well,
that's to be expected, but I'm betting it will be
Michael Herger wrote:
With a Gigabit network, the network speed isn't the bottleneck. The CPU
processing speed of a NAS device is. I'll bet any decent Linux server
will beat any NAS device on speed.
Jim forgot to mention that NAS doesn't mean low power neither. You can buy
NAS
I've tried some searches in the forums, but didn't find the thread I was
looking for.
I realize the difficulty of doing so on different hardware, but has
anyone done comparative performance benchmark testing of a recent
Slimserver version running on, say, a Mac Mini, a Linux box, and a
Windows
Some plugins come in separate Mac/Linux and Windows versions. I think
that most (maybe all) Linux ones will work on Macs as well.
--
danco
danco's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=210
View this
Thanks. BTW, to add to my original message, the kind of operations
interesting to compare across the various platforms include web
interface, library scanning/rescanning, track changing, etc.
--
Balthazar_B
Balthazar_B's
I posted some Windows 2K vs. Linux scanning results in this thread
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33041page=6. In each
case the server (an older Dell Pentium III) was accessing music files
on a NAS (Buffalo LinkStation). Bottom line was that Win2K took 40%
more time to scan than
Bottom line was that Win2K took 40%
more time to scan than Ubuntu did, with a library of around 4000
tracks.
As I could not believe these numbers I just did a test myself. SlimCD run
in a virtual machine is scanning _faster_ than scanning the same
collection over the net on the Windows
Balthazar_B;193694 Wrote:
Thanks. BTW, to add to my original message, the kind of operations
interesting to compare across the various platforms include web
interface, library scanning/rescanning, track changing, etc.
There are definite performance issues associated with SlimServer on
JJZolx wrote:
Balthazar_B;193694 Wrote:
Thanks. BTW, to add to my original message, the kind of operations
interesting to compare across the various platforms include web
interface, library scanning/rescanning, track changing, etc.
There are definite performance issues associated
Peter;193756 Wrote:
I use Linux as my 247/7 up server OS, which makes a NAS rather useless
Why? If you need network accessible storage, you need network
accessible storage. Doesn't matter what operating system(s) you're
running.
The term NAS has taken on a bizarre definition in these forums
JJZolx wrote:
The term NAS has taken on a bizarre definition in these forums to
mean something like a box that runs SlimServer so I don't have to have
a computer running. It means network attached storage, and that's
all.
I agree, it is most strange that NAS has taken such a strange
JJZolx wrote:
Peter;193756 Wrote:
I use Linux as my 247/7 up server OS, which makes a NAS rather useless
Why? If you need network accessible storage, you need network
accessible storage. Doesn't matter what operating system(s) you're
running.
NAS's are usually run by people
Peter;193768 Wrote:
NAS's are usually run by people who don't want to run a real 24/7
server, for whatever reason. Perhaps we should make a poll of it but
I'm betting the majority of NAS users are not running Windows. Well,
that's to be expected, but I'm betting it will be even less.
The thread's getting a little off-track, although the discussion of
content access locally vs. over the net is interesting.
For the record, I'm running an Infrant NV+ box (which is basically a
linux-based multiprotocol file server with several additional daemons
for print services, etc.). My
15 matches
Mail list logo
