Bekijk de volledige versie : [Interest check] low-cost XScale 4 port S-ATA NAS/router
Lots of the users here on this forum are using their WL-500g or WL-500gx router for Network Attached Storage (NAS) on their LAN. Probably most of them have come to the conclusion that their router doesn't have the umph to be used seriously for storing movies and that sort of stuff. The WL-HDD and the Linksys NSLU2 offer slightly better performance but have only one ethernet port and are also not performing as you might expect from a NAS device.
Well, I think I might have found a 'solution' for those who want wire speed (100Mbit) access to their data: The NPWR-LC.
The NPWR-LC is a single board computer (SBC) featuring a fast XScale (ARM ISA) processor, two 100Mbit ethernet ports and four Serial ATA (SATA) ports.
This effectively means you can use the NPWR-LC as a router but also as a NAS device capable of serving more than a terabyte of data to your network at high speeds! And when you think it's expensive your're wrong, it's not. It costs only $115 when ordered in large quantities (100+).
I guess by now you think: 'wow, I want one, but what's the catch?' Well, there are three catches:
1) The company who created the NPWR-LC only sells in large quantities (100+) and only to other businesses.
2) Unlike the usual consumer stuff, the device comes as a plain board. No UFO shaped space enclosures like the Asus routers, you'll have to buy (or build) an enclosure yourself. It also has no memory, so you'll have to buy an extra SO-DIMM (notebook) memory module.
3) Because it's not an consumer product it probably hasn't got a neat webinterface like the Asus routers do, so there's quite a lot to be done to get all the neat stuff working.
This means the NPWR-LC isn't interesting for anyone not willing to invest time in it. In my opinion it's like an uncut diamond.
Now, are you still interested even when you've read the con's too? If so, there's some interesting info on Linux Devices (http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS8859436106.html).
With this post I wan't to determine what other ppl are thinking about this, so I'm asking for your feedback. If enough ppl express interest in buying one, I can make arrangements to aquire a batch of 100 pieces and redistribute them. Also, if someone knows of another product which can deliver the same (or better) key features of this product please respond here...
I prefer to wait for the Asus WL-700g
tophinus
03-06-2005, 08:09
I think it's not interesting. Why use serial-ATA disks on a 100 Mbps lan ? The speed is still limited to 12,5MBytes/s and then you can't use the full speed of SATA which isn't cheaper than IDE. I think I will wait the asus wl700g too.
Tophius, thanks for your input.
I think it's not interesting. Why use serial-ATA disks on a 100 Mbps lan ? The speed is still limited to 12,5MBytes/s and then you can't use the full speed of SATA which isn't cheaper than IDE. I think I will wait the asus wl700g too.I can ask you the same: Why use an IDE drive on 100Mbps lan? So, that's not questionable here imho.
Serial ATA is interesting because:
- The bigger SATA drives are often cheaper then their IDE counterparts (at least here in the Netherlands).
- They are getting easier available then IDE.
- SATA is the future for harddisks. I wouldn't recommend buying an IDE drive to anyone anymore.
Regarding the WL-700g, let's hope it doesn't turn out to be a 3.5" variant of the WL-HDD: The slow processor prohibits the WL-HDD to reach wire speed transfers. It also doesn't provide the opportunity to hook up 4 drives. At best it will support 2...but then again they will probably not fit in the enclosure.
..so why don't you buy a Buffalo Terastation...Gigabit Lan, RaidL5..Linux..hacked..fast PPC...ready to go out of the Box...cost ca. 640 Euro in germany for the 0,6TB Modell
..so why don't you buy a Buffalo Terastation...Gigabit Lan, RaidL5..Linux..hacked..fast PPC...ready to go out of the Box...cost ca. 640 Euro in germany for the 0,6TB ModellHmm, I hadn't seen that one before. Looks interesting for a pure NAS solution.
Globally compared to the NPWR-LC:
Pro's:
Gigabit LAN
Complete box, no additional enclosure and RAM needed. Also has complete webinterface
USB 2.0 ports
Con's:
It doesn't have a second LAN port, so it won't be able to do routing.
It doesn't have mini-pci for WLAN.
Still uses the legacy IDE interface.
Price, a complete NPWR-LC with 4 160GB drives (0.6 TB) would cost around 200 + 4 * 80 = 520 euro. (However I must admit the terastation' pretty cheap for a NAS)
Edit: I've done some searching and this NAS performs on par with the LinkSys NSLU2 (3.5MB/s write, 4.5 MB/s read), so the Gigabit capabilities are useless here...You can safely say that the performance of this NAS sucks :o
...I've done some searching and this NAS performs on par with the LinkSys NSLU2 (3.5MB/s write, 4.5 MB/s read), so the Gigabit capabilities are useless here...You can safely say that the performance of this NAS sucks :o
;-) I'm sure the Terastation is much faster than the values you have posted..read the c't-Magazin. If you need detailed infos how to hack/details/hardware for the Terastation take a look here http://www.terastation.org/wiki/Main_Page
I owned a 200MHz PPC based Buffalo Linkstation which was more than twice faster as a NSLU2 and the Terastation has a 266 MHz PPC.
cu,
peter
;-) I'm sure the Terastation is much faster than the values you have posted..read the c't-Magazin. If you need detailed infos how to hack/details/hardware for the Terastation take a look here http://www.terastation.org/wiki/Main_Page
I owned a 200MHz PPC based Buffalo Linkstation which was more than twice faster as a NSLU2 and the Terastation has a 266 MHz PPC.
Ok, I've done some more searching and reading and I'm getting some mixed feelings here.
Tom's networking tested it (http://www.tomsnetworking.com/Reviews-200-ProdID-TERASTA-9.php) and using a gigabit connection it is able to push 100 Mbit/s onto the wire. It's only a tenth of what real gigabit can do, but at least it's way better then the NSLU2 (about 2 to 3 times).
But there are a lot of ppl reporting poor performance:
Tom's Networking (http://www.tomsnetworking.com/ProductOpinions-TERASTA.php)
CNET 1 (http://reviews.cnet.com/4864-3382_7-31299300.html?messageSiteID=7&messageID=1204046&cval=1204046&ctype=msgid)
CNET 2 (http://reviews.cnet.com/4864-3382_7-31299300.html?messageSiteID=16&messageID=1042600&cval=1042600&ctype=msgid)
Storage review (http://forums.storagereview.net/index.php?showtopic=19841)
and more...
It's only a tenth of what real gigabit can do, but at least it's way better then the NSLU2 (about 2 to 3 times)...
ok, maybe that's true, but I'm sure it's hard to find a faster _NAS-Device_ BTW the upcoming Buffalo Linkstation (now again with PPC not MIPS) will also have a Gigabit Lan.
tophinus
05-06-2005, 09:44
Originally Posted by Styno
Serial ATA is interesting because:
- The bigger SATA drives are often cheaper then their IDE counterparts (at least here in the Netherlands).
- They are getting easier available then IDE.
- SATA is the future for harddisks. I wouldn't recommend buying an IDE drive to anyone anymore.
This is not the case in France. IDE disks are always cheaper and much available than SATA drives. But, I agree than SATA is the future.
In my search for NAS solutions, i found some informations :
- Gigabit lan is limited to 50Mbytes per second if you use a category6 cable. To use the full speed, you must have a optical fibre as cable. here is one of the url where i found the informations : http://www.nokytech.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-19117.html (sorry, it's in French and I don't found the others one)
- With a linux system, USB storage speed is 20Mbytes/s in the best best case. (This is the reason for me than I prefer IDE with 100Mb LAN). I will search further the web page with this info
- A wireless solution is deprecated. A 54Mbps wifi gives a transfer rate of 24,7Mbps. Even the 54 Mbps with afterburner is not insteresting. In this last case, your rate is 34,1 Mbps. Here is the address of my info : http://www.hp.com/united-states/wireless/hsm_download.html
So, I think everyone must consider this infos when he wants to set a NAS system on his LAN. ;)
This is not the case in France. IDE disks are always cheaper and much available than SATA drives. But, I agree than SATA is the future.
This all depends on what level you are talking about ,
when you want to use your device as a 24/7 up storage box. You have to take in account that IDE or SATA isnt the best optioin.
Both do share the same limits when compared to SCSI.
SCSI has a MTBF of 3 duty cycles (24/7 365 days a year)
(S)ATA has a MTBF of 20% of 3 dutycycles thats a lot less.
SATA is nice but it lacks a lot of features that makes SCSI fast and reliable.
Greetz
tophinus
06-06-2005, 19:57
when you want to use your device as a 24/7 up storage box. You have to take in account that IDE or SATA isnt the best optioin.
I also think that SCSI is the best solution for such a system but IDE and SATA are really cheaper than SCSI, regarding the capacity of the disks. So for a personal use, I think that IDE (or SATA if it's cheaper than IDE in your land) is more interesting for common people.
Furthermore, even is SCSI is faster, you are still limited with LAN rate (I hope you understand my bad english :o ). So I don't think SCSI isn't the better solution for a NAS at home but it is in a professional case.
SCSI has a MTBF of 3 duty cycles (24/7 365 days a year)
(S)ATA has a MTBF of 20% of 3 dutycycles thats a lot less.
Excuse me for my lack of vocabulary but what is MTBF ? Can you explain a bit, please ? :confused:
Excuse me for my lack of vocabulary but what is MTBF ? Can you explain a bit, please ? :confused:
Mean Time Between Failure (of the device)
Excuse me for my lack of vocabulary but what is MTBF ? Can you explain a bit, please ? :confused:
Mean Time Between Failure :
It all has something to do with statistics , this number gives you an idea how long a component will function without failure.
But theres more :
Lets say i have a disk with a mtbf of 1000000 hours.
so when i hook up one such disk theres a high probablity that the disk will fail within 1 mil hours. (99.8%). But when i hook up 200 disks within one array. The array will have a mtbf of 1000000/200 = 5000 hours , so there's a high probability that one disk will fail within 5000 hours of operation (99.8 % )
This is all to give you an impression what this mtbf means.
It doesnt mean that a disk will actually fail within 5000 hours.
Greetz
Mean Time Between Failure :
It all has something to do with statistics , this number gives you an idea how long a component will function without failure.
But theres more :
Lets say i have a disk with a mtbf of 1000000 hours.
so when i hook up one such disk theres a high probablity that the disk will fail within 1 mil hours. (99.8%). But when i hook up 200 disks within one array. The array will have a mtbf of 1000000/200 = 5000 hours , so there's a high probability that one disk will fail within 5000 hours of operation (99.8 % )
This is all to give you an impression what this mtbf means.
It doesnt mean that a disk will actually fail within 5000 hours.
GreetzI know you're a professional storage guy, but IDE (P-ATA and S-ATA) are so common to run 24/7 these days. 99% of the home users who have a box running 24/7 use IDE and lots of the smaller and mid-size companies heavilly depend on IDE as well. I am aware of the MBTF term and what it means, but I've seen more then my share of (nearly brand-new) SCSI harddisks failures. Especially accounting the 'fact' that SCSI is professional and IDE disks are not...
Anyway, a S-ATA RAID-5 array using 4 disks provides (on a small network) the same performance with much larger capacities for a significant lower price with practically the same data integrity ratio.
So SCSI is hardly an interesting product here. Unless you can deliver me a 1 TB SCSI NAS device for EUR. 800,-- ofcourse :D
I know you're a professional storage guy, but IDE (P-ATA and S-ATA) are so common to run 24/7 these days. 99% of the home users who have a box running 24/7 use IDE and lots of the smaller and mid-size companies heavilly depend on IDE as well. I am aware of the MBTF term and what it means, but I've seen more then my share of (nearly brand-new) SCSI harddisks failures. Especially accounting the 'fact' that SCSI is professional and IDE disks are not...
I have a question on the WL-700g:
1. Will this model have a 1.1 or a 2.0 USB port?
2. The most important question for me: will it be possible to use the
WL-700g without inserting any internal hard drive but connecting
instead an external USB hard drive (I already have an external 2.5" HD
and would like to save money not buying a HD to insert inside)?
Antiloop
08-06-2005, 09:29
I have a question on the WL-700g:
don't discuss it here
see specs: 2049
All we know about it is there
I know you're a professional storage guy,
You know me then ??????????
but IDE (P-ATA and S-ATA) are so common to run 24/7 these days. 99% of the home users who have a box running 24/7 use IDE and lots of the smaller and mid-size companies heavilly depend on IDE as well. I am aware of the MBTF term and what it means, but I've seen more then my share of (nearly brand-new) SCSI harddisks failures. Especially accounting the 'fact' that SCSI is professional and IDE disks are not...
Yes true but the fun part of this all is you normally can replace the disks under warranty :)
Anyway, a S-ATA RAID-5 array using 4 disks provides (on a small network) the same performance with much larger capacities for a significant lower price with practically the same data integrity ratio.
But using SCSI as your storage in Raid 5 (or whatever) will result in a much lower serverload then typical PATA or SATA.
Sorry guys but this is more or less off-topic. Im a bit of a storage addict.
Cheers
You know me then ??????????Be careful what you say about yourself ;)
I saw this post in another thread:
Currently testing a new iSCSI box (will be released somewhere 2nd half of this year) (Doing that as a part of my job)
tophinus
11-06-2005, 08:05
Thanks for explaining me what MTBF is :)
Thanks for explaining me what MTBF is :)
Meaningless Time Between Failure
:rolleyes:
A little update for this topic.
I'm still very interested in a high end, "more capable", NAS device. As Team-ASA is not willing to ship less then 100 pieces at once, and interest of other people is not what I hoped for, I am giving my hope to get one of these devices up.
So I've started to look elsewhere and compiled a list of interesting devices: High end NAS comparison (http://webtools.wl500g.info/wiki/doku.php?id=docs:nascomparison).
Of the current "capable" devices, the Infrant ReadyNAS X6 is the most interesing because of it's well tuned firmware and good performance. However, this device is rather costly in Europe as one has to pay 460 GBP (around 680 Euro) for a barebone version (no harddisks): http://www.eaegis.net/.
Apart from the ReadyNAS, the Newisys NA-1400 is a promising product, but it's not available yet. Let it be marketing blabla, but Newisys promises "best of class" performance and reports up to 22 MB/s performance on it's website. This brings it roughly up to par with the ReadyNAS but will cost significantly less: 400 to 500 Euro for a barebone version. Besides the two gigabit ports and hot-swap harddisks, this is the major reason for me to buy a Newisys NA-1400. In anticipation of this device being shipped (Newisys promised shipment around the end of October), I've started an wl-500g.info like site: http://www.na1400.info
I hope to see you there sometime and maybe you can tell me what you think about it.
Edit: updated the excl. FAT price of the ReadyNAS to incl. FAT
Styno, are you familiar with Via Epia boards?
they have a lot of models, some have dual ethernet connectors + ide, but they may be a bit hard to find at your "regular" store...
they'r about 100eur(?)
http://www.viavpsd.com/product/epia_cl_spec.jsp?motherboardId=181
http://www.techcase.de/index.php?cPath=91
Styno, are you familiar with Via Epia boards?
they have a lot of models, some have dual ethernet connectors + ide, but they may be a bit hard to find at your "regular" store...Yep I am, that's why I don't want one of those... :)
Let's compare a VIA solution to a commercial solution like the Newisys NA-1400 or Infrant ReadyNAS X6:
- Via NIC's are rarely capable of transmitting more then 6 MB/s and require a lot of CPU power at the same time. Also the more capable versions (e.g. 1 GHz Nemehia) require half as much power as an ordinary PIII @ 1GHz, but perform also roughly like a PIII-500. An Intel XScale I/O Processor consumes around 2 Watt.
- Getting a VIA board to do RAID-5 with 4 harddisks requires an extra PCI card. You also need an extra gigabit network card (or two), so the two (or three) devices are struggling with eachother for the scarse bandwith of a single PCI bus. When using software raid you rely heavilly on the CPU which results in poor performance on a VIA CPU. So one should result to a hardware RAID controller with onboard XOR engine (Like the Broadcom RAIDCore BCxxx series). But those are expensive.
- The next problem is to find a suitable SFF case and hot-swap drive bays to house everything in.
they'r about 100eur(?)
Component costs (checked with a Dutch pricewatch site):
- VIA board: at least 100 EUR (more likely 150+).
- 256 MB RAM: 20 EUR.
- SATA controller: 100 EUR.
- SATA hotswap backplane for 4 harddisks: 100 EUR.
- PCI Gigabit adapter: 40 EUR.
- PCI Riser card (to place 2 PCI cards): 20 EUR.
- Housing: at least 70 EUR.
- Power supply: 50 EUR.
- Boot flash: 10 EUR.
=====================+
Total: 510 EUR minimum.
So, compared to the Newisys NA-1400 a VIA based solution isn't all that cheap.
I allready have a PIII Celeron 1 GHz network server with 100 Mbit network, but I want to replace it with a faster and more power efficient solution as the server is active 24/7. That's why I'm not going for a VIA based solution.
Edit: Forgot a power supply :)