Recommendations for a NAS as an inexpensive Image Server...

[RichardBenfield]

Hi All,

I need to determine what NAS to use for imaging computers. Don’t worry about all of the details, I know it sounds crazy and I can explain if you must know. But trust me, I have valid reasons for going down this road. The really important factors are all listed here

Here are the main requirements:

• Read Speed - I need to image as many computers as possible at the same time, with images that are 1.5 GB to 3 GB. I don’t care how long it takes to write to the drive. Read speed of large files over multiple connections is the most important factor.
• Capacity - I need about 1TB, a little less (750GB) or a little more (1.5TB) is fine
• Price - I need to keep the price as low as possible. Preferably less than $350 (including drives) per NAS.
• Size - This will have to be a single or dual drive solution. I can’t use 4 drives or even dual solutions with large enclosures. I know that will cap performance, but it needs to be pretty compact.
• RAID - Sure BUT, I don’t need redundancy. Speed, capacity and price take precedence over redundancy. If using it in RAID 1 provides better read speed, fine. If the performance difference is negligible, then RAID 0, JBOD, single drive, whatever.
• Features - SMB, I don’t need backups, media sharing/streaming, etc, etc, etc. I need to be able to read and write to it from Windows over the network that is all

If you need any additional information, just let me know. I look forward to your suggestions.

Thanks,
Richard

 

[RichardBenfield]

Does this buffalo have wings?

I'm inclined to try out the Buffalo LinkStation Pro LS-XHL. The TeraStation Duo looks good, but its a little big and for the 18% performance increase you pay 63% more. For that much more, I think I would rather double the performance, by just buying two of the LinkStation Pros. This is how it stacks up to my requirements.

• Read Speed - Very Respectable for the price.
• Capacity - 1TB, perfect
• Price - $200, (double take) its only how much!?!?! Pinch me... I'm dreaming...
• Size - 1.78 x 6.89 x 6.15 , Thats smaller than my external DVD Burner... Perfect!
• RAID - Nope, but don't care...
• Features - Sure, but I still don't care...

If I could get better performance without breaking the bank that would be great, but when I look at the NAS charts above the 50 MB/s line I see mostly Qnap Turbo NAS for plenty more money and no drives included, Synology (again) for plenty more money and no drives included, Thecus (same ole story) for plenty more money and no drives included (plus those are BIG). Actually the HP MediaSmart Servers look promising. However, it is running WHS which limits me to 10 connections.

Am I missing anything? Has anyone ever tried pulling large (multi-GB) files from any of these NAS from 10+ computers at the same time?

Thanks again,
Richard

 

[thiggins]

As you've figured out, the LS-XHL is a pretty good value for the money. However, I have not run multi-client tests on any products. You should expect performance to degrade because your files won't be cached and drive seeks. How much, I can't tell you. Just remember that these aren't server-class products.

 

[RichardBenfield]

Thanks Tim,

I completely understand about these not being server class hardware. Basically what I am looking at is a Disaster Recovery scenario until the infrastructure is restored. The idea being that there is a number of pelican cases stored off site at various locations, which contain the minimum requirements to start recovering the client environment. I can not include a Server or even a desktop within the pelican cases. That leaves me with one of two scenarios. A simple solution such as a NAS which can be pulled out, plugged in and imaged from. Or have a more complex solution such as a hardware independant server image on an external hard drive which in a DR scenario would first be used to build a server (probably on desktop hardware) and then begin imaging. The second solution would require approximately 3 hours before we could even begin imaging. The first solution obviously has a lot of appeal.

So really my main concern is not that it be able to perform on par with Server class hardware, or even with desktop hardware. But rather that it not be significantly less than desktop class hardware. If the performance of using a NAS would be so much less than a desktop that I could easily recover the 3 hours that I would initially loose, then I can work towards a desktop/server image instead of trying to use a NAS. Otherwise the NAS would be much easier to do and much faster to get started.

There may not be any easy answers and I may just have to obtain a NAS and perform testing. I am just hoping that someone can tell me if I am wasting my time.

Thanks
Richard Benfield

 

[thiggins]

Thanks for the additional details. I think the only way to know for sure is to try it. And the LS-XHL is a good candidate for the trial.