Posts: 424
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation:
13
Can you run Sabnzbd, couchPotato, and Sickbeard on any of these NAS solutions?
For me, that's the big question. If I can run all 3 easily, and be able to update them via their web interfaces as normal, then there is no reason to run windows 7 on it.
From the point of view of the other computers on the network, what would be the differences between a NAS or a windows 7 PC sharing drives? Lets assume the Win7 machine is running a similar RAID array as you would find on a NAS.
ie, would the NAS solutions be faster? Would the network shares show up the same? Can any of these solutions be setup to sleep until they are accessed, and then wake up automatically?
Thanks
Posts: 7
Joined: Mar 2011
Reputation:
0
Sabnzbd and Sickbeard run on readynas. Not sure about couchpotatoe.
The difference between getting a dedicated nas like the readynas and the freenas is that it has an expandable RAID array with hot swap when you need to upgrade your discs. I most likely also consumes less power than the equivalent PC homebrew.
Posts: 437
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation:
0
unRaid can run any of those. It automatically transcodes all of my content using HandBrakeCLI in the background. You get storage geared towards media (few concurrent users accessing large files that are written once and read many times) instead of business content (small file, high concurrency) or database (write-heavy) access.
Posts: 1,141
Joined: Mar 2006
Reputation:
0
I have a Synology DS410j that works really well. Has a really great web interface, too. It's cheap, and fits up to 8tb and can do any type of raid you want - I have raid 5. I am running couchpotato, sickbeard, and sabnzbd on there, all of the web interfaces work fine. I've notice that sometimes if I have a moderately large queue on sabnzbd it will slow things down enough that the web interfaces are really slow to load, but its variable so I'm not exactly what the issue is. The box only has 128mb of ram so it's not very surprising. There is a big modding scene on the synology forums so there is a lot of potential with these boxes. The only things I would change about my box if i could would be slightly more ram - I think 250mb would do it - and add WOL capacity. More expensive synology models have it, just not the 410j. It has a gb network connection and I've never had any trouble streaming, even with most of my house of 10 people all with their own accounts and I'm sure there have been times when many of them have been streaming at the same time.
Posts: 4,058
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation:
89
zag
Team-Kodi Member
Posts: 4,058
I use QNAP 419p+ with 8tb in Raid 5.
Works nicely and has a great interface but the included drives are pretty loud.
Posts: 9
Joined: May 2010
Reputation:
0
OpenIndiana or Solaris 11 Express running an encrypted raidz3 tank on a storage pool of 9 disks FTW
Posts: 5
Joined: Apr 2011
Reputation:
0
I'm using a synology DS411j. Been using it to stream my video to my popcornhour using NFS, map to my window machine and using it via webDAV on the IOS port of xbmc its great. i do all my download and stuff using the nas so my pc is seldom on. really recommend it.
Posts: 32
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation:
0
Synology DS411j and a Freenas setup, in a cheap £100 HP microserver (booting from USB and the HP is v. quiet.)
Doing it all again, Id go the Freenas route... but the synology certainly offers some good features.
PS. NFS performs better on both setups....
Posts: 1,747
Joined: Jun 2004
Reputation:
12
blittan
Retired Team-Kodi Member
Posts: 1,747
QNAP is the only nas worth buying if we aren't talking real professional storage..
unRAID is a decent software raid.
Posts: 9
Joined: May 2010
Reputation:
0
2011-04-11, 15:02
(This post was last modified: 2011-04-11, 15:10 by g00ey.)
FreeNAS is good but the ZFS implementation is not as up-to-date and as stable as In Solaris/OI/Belenix/Schillix/Nexenta.
Moreover if you intend to use SMB/CIFS for file sharing (which is the file sharing protocol used in Windows in contrast to NFS which is the native linux/unix Network File System which was originally developed by Sun Microsystems the company behind Solaris) over the network, Solaris based operating systems will have a better performance simply because CIFS is in the Solaris kernel whereas SMB is in the userland in FreeBSD/FreeNAS.
The current downside to OpenSolaris et al is that it doesn't have as neat a WebGUI as the FreeNAS. But it has webmin and napp-it which should suit most webadmins needs. I personally use ssh and sometimes vnc which works very well for me.
There also used to be WebGUI for Solaris, which I don't know how well it is supported in Solaris 11 but it has been removed from OpenSolaris/OpenIndiana based distros. Otherwise Nexenta offers a good WebGUI that is simple to use. The only downside to this is that if you want to use Nexenta (NexentaStor community edition) for free you are only allowed to host a maximum of 18TB on the file server. The other distros have no such limits. It can also be worth mentioning that napp-it also comes from Nexenta.
