Well I have my thecus 5200 now (upgraded RAM to 512MB) - bought
primarily for other reasons but with 30,000 tracks flac and mp3 and wma
it is so much faster to scroll through the menus than my qnap ts-101 was
- much less embarrassing when your trying to show off - now i just have
to get the
Maditude;199215 Wrote:
Pellicle, can you tell us how much noise the Thecus box puts out? Also,
does it have a telnet/ssh interface, and can one install any old
software one wants on it? (ie, imap+postfix, apache, etc)
Yes there are intallable modules which enable SSH. I am using this
Pellicle;191259 Wrote:
The N5200 NAS by Thecus is a suitable NAS for slimserver. It has a
pentium M for a CPU and is basically a Linux PC with a custom Linus
distro for this purpose.
I thought that sounded great, until I checked the pricing. I could pick
up a fanless linux box and add
Pellicle, can you tell us how much noise the Thecus box puts out? Also,
does it have a telnet/ssh interface, and can one install any old
software one wants on it? (ie, imap+postfix, apache, etc)
--
Maditude
Maditude's
Just to note - The Thecus N5200 NAS can run 6.5.0 now and has no issues
with performance. I went this route rather than the Infrant due to
input form these forums concerning the CPU demand of the recent
versions of Slimserver. I did not want ot have an extra box running if
possible although
I'm a bit unclear on this issue: where exactly is the speed bottleneck?
You can connect the squeezebox to either the slimserver running on the
NAS or to a slimserver running on a pc (still your music is on the
NAS). By connecting to the server on the pc, do you overcome the speed
issue because
Hamlet;191572 Wrote:
I'm a bit unclear on this issue: where exactly is the speed bottleneck?
You can connect the squeezebox to either the slimserver running on the
NAS or to a slimserver running on a pc (still your music is on the
NAS). By connecting to the server on the pc, do you overcome
ceejay;191579 Wrote:
I think the main issue is that some (most?) NAS devices have only enough
computing grunt to be able to pick a file off the disc and serve it to
the network, which is after all what they were designed for. Running a
relational database and PERL is a bit tougher,
Then avoiding using SS on a NAS and instead running it on a pc with the
NAS strictly serving files overcomes the speed issue (this is what I
have been doing anyway, never tried ss on NAS).
...and introducing a new one: network traffic. Accessing a NAS over the
network is easily 5-10x slower
Michael Herger;191583 Wrote:
Then avoiding using SS on a NAS and instead running it on a pc with
the
NAS strictly serving files overcomes the speed issue (this is what I
have been doing anyway, never tried ss on NAS).
and introducing a new one: network traffic. Accessing a NAS over
Hello again Michael. Which is the lesser of the two evils than? Is
using the pc SS with NAS file serving faster than using the NAS for
both?
I'd imagine the PC+NAS solution as it's only slow during scanning, not
during interaction. But then you could simply use external disks as well
Michael Herger;191592 Wrote:
I'd imagine the PC+NAS solution as it's only slow during scanning, not
during interaction. But then you could simply use external disks as
well
(would be faster!).
--
Michael
Thanks Michael, that all makes sense and it seems there are solutions
Michael is correct. One may overcome the CPU limitations by running
SlimServer on a separate box, but file transfers will be slower from a
NAS than from a local disk.
I think the cause of the disgruntledness for many NAS owners is that
they bought the NAS with the expectation that it would work
jeffmeh;191605 Wrote:
In my opinion, SD should either address the problem, or they should put
some serious disclaimers on the ReadyNAS bundle (or stop selling it).
I can see your point. I think that a big part of a SB/NAS owner's
satisfaction has to do with his expectations. In your case
On 3/29/07, sander [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The only solution is to move it the actual SlimServer to another box or
buy some theoretically faster NAS in the future.
That's answered my queries about a NAS for slimserver. back to the drawing
board.
eblantz;191029 Wrote:
interestingly, the squeezebox interface works ok. Any ideas??
Uh, use the squeezebox interface instead of the web ui? I'm only being
half-facetious here. Using the SB remote and the Lazy Search plugin
works quite quickly even on my Buffalo Linkstation NAS (128MB RAM,
I said this before and I am trying to catch some attention again.
For gamers or people who wants cheap blu-ray out there in the
community, note that the Sony PS3 is potentially a killer Linux server
that should be millions of times more powerful than the NAS boxes.
The PS3 allows you to:
1.
The N5200 NAS by Thecus is a suitable NAS for slimserver. It has a
pentium M for a CPU and is basically a Linux PC with a custom Linus
distro for this purpose.
I run SS on this and have no performance issues. I expect Infrant will
come out with a unit competitive to this but for now it appears
i recently upgraded to an infrant readynas that came bundled with
slimserver. I finally got all my music copied over from a quickly
failing HD and MOST of my music now shows and plays. unfortunately,
whereas when i ran the server on my pc I used to be able to search for
music and browse
Well, I think you experience is fairly typical on the ReadyNas. The
interface is great via the device, but lacking via the NAS. From what
I've seen the Thecus is the only NAS that's sufficiently fast enough
CPU-wise, but that and all the others are lacking in RAM.
The only solution is to move it
20 matches
Mail list logo
