Gil Hale wrote: > My concern in general is using any IDE or SATA class Hard drive for multiple > users. The more the users, or heavier the demand on the Hard Drive, the > more likely I am to move to a SCSI interface which is inherently designed to > handle multiple I/O demands. Got to pick the right weapon for the right > fight. I have looked at NAS devices as useful for light multi-user use > where nobody wants to get a Real Server that is designed to handle heavier > traffic (yes, including adding a SCSI Hard drive). I also look at NAS as > useful for file backup purposes, although it seems to me a USB 2.0 or SATA > (II) interface could be far faster for that purpose. > Many people are finding that moving to a 1000base T network doesn't necessarily deliver the 10 fold increase over 100base T they expected. The disappointing near 100base T performance actually achieved is due to bottlenecks in other areas that reduce throughput.
If it were me, I would probably buy a Linux computer dedicated as a backup server, media server, file server, or whatever. The Netgear readyNAS does provide some advantages in providing redundancy, backups, acts as a dedicated server, and is reasonable priced, but all of this could also be achieved using a dedicated, cheap Linux computer. Right now I'm using TVersity as my media server to which my PS3 connects. TVersity currently only runs under Windows, so I'm running it as a guest XP Pro VM under vmware hosted in Fedora 8. There is a Mac, Linux, Unix port of TVersity in the works. I don't know how well this system would work under greater load with multiple computers requesting media services. http://tversity.com/ #--------------------------- Excerpt: Peak HDD transfer rates aside, I wouldn't expect even close to 1Gbps out of a hard disk in a home PC, let alone one in a cheap NAS box. The constraining factors will be: The filesystem on the disk The processor in the NAS box The OS & software on the NAS box The file transfer protocol You probably wouldn't even hit more than 2-300Mbps. Such a box is convenient though. And Cat5 is sufficient to run 1000Base-T. http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies-archive.cfm/939150.html #--------------------------------------- Regards, LelandJ > Just my little old two cents... > > Gil > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Graham Brown >> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 5:18 PM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: RE: Getting errors on NAS >> >> >> Hmm interesting. >> >> I have a meeting with clients on Wednesday to discuss moving a >> standalone application to a NAS box on a peer to peer network. Same sort >> of user count. >> >> Not sure if this is a good idea or not at the mo. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Michael Madigan >> Sent: 08 September 2008 20:31 >> To: GrahamB >> Subject: Getting errors on NAS >> >> So I moved over my foxpro 2.6 system over to a Network Attached Device. >> Everything seemed to work smoothly, but now with 8 people using the >> system at once we are getting read errors and database not found errors. >> Exiting the program and restarting it fixes the problem. >> >> Are there any tweaks that I can do with foxpro or will I have to abandon >> using a NAS? >> >> I can't seem to find any known errors doing this using Google. >> >> >> [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
