NAS Advice for PCH \ Squeezebox

shamrocker

Standard Member
Hi guys,

I'm looking to buy a NAS - primarily for streaming files to a Popcorn A-110 & Squeezebox Classic - please let me know if anybody has any recommendations? :smashin: Was looking at the Icy Box NAS4220-B, would this do the job well?

Many thanks
 

[email protected]

Active Member
I've just sold an Icybox NAS and I have to say it was a pain in the ears (anag) to use. It does not support NTFS so can't handle files over 2gb, restricting its use in playing back HD video. I found the firmware eccentric and though I tried mapping the drive to my media PCs it kept falling off the network for reasons I could never ascertain. It might have been OK in the hands of a more skilled user than me - I hope the guy I sold it to was. But I was glad to see the back of it.
 

shamrocker

Standard Member
Thanks Niall, I've decided against the Icy Box after reading similar things. Think I've now settled on the NetGear ReadyNAS duo.

Cheers
 

DeadKenny

Active Member
I'm looking at a QNAP TS-239 myself, or maybe a TS-439 at a push. They're a bit pricey as they're new, but they're some of the first to use Atom processors and should have a fair bit of processing power but yet are still low powered.

I looked at ReadyNAS but seems they're quite low spec CPUs. Although they support Squeeze Centre, but struggle with other stuff I want (web and email server especially).

QNAP have Squeeze Centre support as an optional component you can download, along with a load of other packages. Like so many NAS, it's just another linux distribution really. Not sure if it supports NTFS (though linux can but it's not reliable for writing files), but the linux filesystem it has I think should be fine for big (>2GB) files. There are many filesystem options anyway.

With reviews on quality and spec, I'm sold on QNAP's kit. ReadyNAS seems a bit "cheap" to me. But then it looks like you get what you pay for.

See also this thread...

http://www.avforums.com/forums/stre...s-439-vrs-buffalo-linkstation-quad-4-0tb.html
 

Stone Free

Active Member
I'm looking at a QNAP TS-239 myself, or maybe a TS-439 at a push. They're a bit pricey as they're new, but they're some of the first to use Atom processors and should have a fair bit of processing power but yet are still low powered.

With reviews on quality and spec, I'm sold on QNAP's kit. ReadyNAS seems a bit "cheap" to me. But then it looks like you get what you pay for.
Have you seen any reviews pitting the QNAP against the Synology 209, which was one of the winners in the PC Pro test?
 

DeadKenny

Active Member
Not the QNAP 239 vs Synology 209, but there's this thread about the QNAP 209 by comparison.

http://www.avforums.com/forums/stre...5-synology-209-faster-then-qnap-209ii-sc.html

Just an asumption there though, but makes sense. The QNAP 209 has a slower processor and less memory (only 256mb). From my experience of running my old self-built server the processor may be okay as mine's a 400Mhz CPU, but 256mb is too small if you want the stuff I want (Squeeze Centre, web server handling 4 low traffic domains, exchange-like IMAP email server, bittorrent client in the main). I've got 512mb on my self build with Fedora on it and it pushes the 512mb to the limit.

Now the QNAP 239 on the other hand is an Atom processor at 1.6Ghz and 1Gb ram. Okay the Atom is going to slow it down on some tasks, but they're very capable and extremely low powered processors. If the same CPU can run Win XP, Vista and Win7 on my Sammy NC10 netbook just fine (and it can), then it's up to the job of a simple server like this.

Problem is, being the latest technology, it's twice the price! (£400 aprox at the moment for a 2 bay model. The 439 is the 4 bay version at £600. And that's without discs!).

But for me the important thing is compact design, much lower noise than my current system, and a lot lower power consumption. Plus ease of use.

But I'm also toying with hosting my web & mail stuff externally and going for a cheap NAS just for storage and Squeeze Centre. For what I want though, the monthly hosting costs are stacking up and compared to a more expensive NAS plus leccy bill for it, over a 3 to 5 year period, it's perhaps cheaper to use the NAS (and far more flexible than a lot of cheap hosts).
 

t72bogie

Novice Member
bottom line is you need to pay quite a bit for PC like performance in a NAS - you need a new generation one with atom or Core 2 duo and 1GB RAM +

these start at around £400-1200

ReadyNAS NVX 4 bay is in the top 3 fastest on the market, 5 year warranty and solid metal chassis and case....not sure how thats "cheap" compared to a plastic QNAP with 1 yr warranty ;)

all the 2 bay jobbies with 400Mhz CPUs manage fine for Squeezecentre, bittorrent etc on their own, but get it doing 2 or 3 things simulaneously and dont be expecting it to do much else, and streaming high bit-rate to suffer

so as usual, you get what you pay for and unless you want the convenience of a ready built NAS, then its almost always cheaper to build a seperate server for all your different tasks......
 

DeadKenny

Active Member
so as usual, you get what you pay for and unless you want the convenience of a ready built NAS, then its almost always cheaper to build a seperate server for all your different tasks......
As I say, I've got a self-build, but I keep going through PSUs on it as it's not really server grade kit. To get suitable for 24/7 it's going to have to be made of components equivalent to a fairly decent spec NAS anyway (or go for a rack mount which is getting pretty expensive).

Plus the power consumption in these kinds of NAS are around 20 or 30W compared to my 200W heater (and that's only 200W because it's very old kit being an AMD K6-2 400. If it was newer it would be more!).

The drives in my old system are wearing away and very noisy so they need replacing, as does pretty much the whole kit. Plus I'm fed up with building linux distributions and messing with drivers hence the attraction of a ready built NAS.

But I'm still thinking about it. Might as I say go for external hosting plus a cheap NAS for storage and basic streaming.
 

t72bogie

Novice Member
yeah, youve just listed all the downsides to building/maintaining another box at home, and why people go for NAS in the first place :smashin:

Ive had a Netgear ReadyNAS NV+ for over 2 years now, running 24/7 - consumes about 30w max and does everything I need ...I too have had seperate servers before at home (im in the industry, so have had 40 U racks at home before I settled down LOL )

im sure as the market develops (its growing so fast) then prices will come down in the NAS world, and price/performance will get better all the time

some of the issues are with expectations - people think that a £100 one bay "NAS" should be as fast as their Firewire attached HDD ....or cant understand why their Linux/ RISC based 500Mhz NAS struggles running software designed for a 2Gig PC with 2GB RAM whilst streaming media at 4MB/s AND downloading bittorrent at 8Mbps :)

you seem to know what you want, and what you dont, so it just a case of getting the best performing box for the price :smashin:
 

Rickyj at Kalibrate

Distinguished Member
AVForums Sponsor
I looked at the netgear, but decided for the money, I could do better, so I built a small server around the atom processor, and with a 1tb drive for under £200, and I can add an extra 4 drives in future if required.

Look under the server section of this forum for details;)
 

t72bogie

Novice Member
you can always do better for the money if you DIY and dont mind administering another server on your home network

a good NAS, isnt about saving money, for all the reasons stated in the posts above......
 

boxrick

Well-known Member
I own a Qnap 509 and a 209 myself both *excellent* units tried things from other manufacturors but i find they never do exactly what i need, my qnaps work perfectly :smashin:
 

DeadKenny

Active Member
Haven't come across that one yet, but just looking now, cheers:smashin:.

Not sure about Windows Home Server though. Whilst I'm all for Windows on the desktop and don't rate linux at all for the same, I'm mainly used to linux on servers and know where I am. I've never touched WHS either.

For a 5 bay it works out cheaper than the bigger QNAP Atom based 439 and has one extra bay also!. One attraction for me with 2 bay systems is the smaller space. Currently my old big server sits in a cupboard taking up a lot of space and I want to free up the cupboard by getting something that can sit on a shelf in the hallway. The space I've got at the moment would suite a 2 bay. Still, I could just build a bigger shelf :D

Edit: Ah, I see the link was to the non-barebones one. The barebones has no OS and could have linux on it.
 
Last edited:

The latest video from AVForums

65-inch LG C1 Review coming soon to AVForums
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom