NV+ or Ultra

Either could be used. However for simultaneous streaming it's best if you can use ethernet (wired) rather than wi-fi (wireless). Take a look at ReadyNAS Performance Expectations

That page shows numbers for the Duo/NV+ (v1). The new Duo/NV+ v2 (RND2000-200/RND4000-200) units will of course be much quicker over ethernet. Over wireless, the wireless connection is going to be the bottleneck.

Of course you can try ethernet over power but this doesn't work as well as running ethernet cables. An advantage of running ethernet is that you can place the NAS in a suitable out of the way location. With wireless for best performance you'll want the NAS in a central location between your TVs.

The NV+ is too slow running Squeezebox Server (LogitechMediaCenter) to a Squeezebox Touch over a wired network. Too slow; too slow. The result of much discussion is that this seems to be the fault of the NV+ and not of the server software.

The NV+ v2 would likely be much better than the NV+ with Squeezebox (but I don't think there's an add-on for it yet).

Personally I would go with the Ultra as it's Intel-based giving you the greatest variety of add-ons you can install on it and the best performance of the options you mentioned.

Having said that for simply streaming video files the wireless network would be the bottleneck. You can try with a wireless network but don't be surprised if the performance is poor compared to using a wired one.

mdgm wrote:

The NV+ v2 would likely be much better than the NV+ with Squeezebox (but I don't think there's an add-on for it yet). Personally I would go with the Ultra as it's Intel-based giving you the greatest variety of add-ons you can install on it and the best performance of the options you mentioned. Having said that for simply streaming video files the wireless network would be the bottleneck. You can try with a wireless network but don't be surprised if the performance is poor compared to using a wired one.

I'm sorry but I am not sure what you mean by "bottleneck"??? Do you mean a bottleneck of info being streamed through my wireless router? or a bottleneck of info/processes in the NAS or wireless receivers (e.g. NeoTV)?

Bottleneck of how much data you can transfer over a wireless connection. Look at the link I gave in my opening post.

Of course the slower CPU of a Sparc (e.g. NV+ v1) NAS would of course mean that if the NAS needs to do lots of work, the NV+ is going to be slower than an Ultra. However you may find you hit the wireless bottleneck well before you hit the limits of the NAS's CPU.

Fire of Youth - the data throughput of a gigabit network (1000 Megabit) is approximately 100 Megabytes per second (1000 Megabit/8 bits per byte is 125 Megabytes) That is currently the fastest network speed found in homes. Many devices though are still "Fast Ethernet" meaning 100 megabits per second or 12 Megabytes per second. Until the last half dozen years of so, this was the top speed in most home. Many devices state they have a 10/100 port meaning 10 Megabits per second/100 Megabits per second.

Remember it takes 8 Megabits (Mb note lower case b) to make a Megabyte (MB note upper case B).

Wireless G has an over the air transmission speed of approximately 54 Megabits/sec which translates to approximately 5 Megabytes (MB)/sec. If you are using wireless N, then it is up to 6 times faster, but even that is far slower that the wired gigabit network speed, This is why the recommendation that the connection from the NAS to your TV be wired all the way, even though it is more trouble and expensive to run the wire. No matter how fast the NAS is, if you are using wireless, your speed will be limited to the wireless speed.

PapaBear wrote:
.Wireless G has an over the air transmission speed of approximately 54 Megabits/sec which translates to approximately 5 Megabytes (MB)/sec.

While the link speed is 54 megabits, the transfer rate ceiling is much less - around 24 megabits, or around 3 megabytes (MB)/sec. That of course is the fastest it will go, often it will be less.

StephenB wrote:
PapaBear wrote: .Wireless G has an over the air transmission speed of approximately 54 Megabits/sec which translates to approximately 5 Megabytes (MB)/sec. While the link speed is 54 megabits, the transfer rate ceiling is much less - around 24 megabits, or around 3 megabytes (MB)/sec. That of course is the fastest it will go, often it will be less.

Would getting a faster modem/router fix this problem?

A faster wireless router will help (see "Performance Expectations" article) if your clients (e.g. PC, laptop etc.) have wireless cards that can handle the faster speed. It's still not going to be as good as a wired connection.

mdgm wrote:
A faster wireless router will help (see "Performance Expectations" article) if your clients (e.g. PC, laptop etc.) have wireless cards that can handle the faster speed. It's still not going to be as good as a wired connection.

"Faster router" meaning 802.11n. That can get you around > 70 megabits at closer ranges (maybe more if you can use channel bonding). That would be around 9 MB/s. You are still limited by the wireless link of course.