Recommend a newer model of a Netgear NAS?

I would suggest the 312 with WD RED drives for the above. These are low power drives but designed for RAID use.

If you need more drive bays consider the 314 and 316.

With the 314 for example you can have a X-RAID volume 3x the size of one in the 312 using the same capacity disks.

The new models have USB3. USB performance would be better with the 312 than with the 102. There is also eSATA available.

Having said that if the Duo is fine for you, then the 102 should be too.

Thanks mdgm,

Funny enough I was searching online vendors and reviews to try and compare new Netgear models (wow, the market really has been saturated with choices since I first bought mine), and had was eyeing off RN31200-100AJS (312). As always with technology, I'm inclined to think that if did that much of an upgrade (ultimately just to overcome this log file issue), I may as well future proof a little more with a 4-bay RN31400-100AJS ReadyNAS 314, although both are a big jump up. Unfortunately I'd be faced with using my existing drives for a while until I could afford new drives (such as the Red series you mention).

It does seem like the RN10200-100AJS ReadyNAS 102 might be the right choice for me at the moment since it's quite affordable (+/- $160 for the bare unit). It comes with esata, usb3.0, and dropbox support (all nice bonuses) while fulfilling my primary needs listed above. I'd need a pretty nifty feature of a higher-end NAS to justify the cost at the moment (such as a permanent minecraft server to placate my kids, lol)

Any idea if these newer models are smarter about handling the system partition and log files that keep getting me in so much trouble with the SPARC unit?

ReadyNAS OS, especially firmware 6.1.9 onwards is very good at rotating log files to avoid filling the OS partition with them.

Also the OS partition is 4GB which is twice the size of the 2GB one on your Duo.

You are more likely to be able to install things such as mine craft on an x86 box such as the 312 than an ARM box such as the 102.

I would too recommend 3xx series depending on how many disk slots you want. The 1xx series will be limited, it has around 90-95MB/s in read and 40MB/s in write but if you have to share this on several machines this will be really slow (should be faster than the duo though), and that's without antivirus/encryption. 3xx will perform way better and has more ram for apps and intel platform allows for more apps too. HDMI is another advantage too though it is not used by default.
What your duo does, any OS6 device should be able to handle it too ; But I feel the 3xx series holds a better value. I personally have an RN104 and I regret not picking the 314 instead. If you plan to have your NAS for several years I would choose an intel NAS. If you want pure performance there still is the 516 but this may be a bit of an overkill for you, unless you plan to do 1080P transcoding.

For disks, either WD red (EFRX) or seagate NAS (STxxxxVNxxx) are recommended. They consume less power than normal disks and are designed to be used with RAID in NAS. They usually are a few bucks above other disks but come with an extended warranty and don't have head parking problems.
If you want to split the investment, you should be able to use your old disks (if they are on HCL otherwise support could be denied) and replace them later.

If you just have a problem with the log files, isn't it possible to just use a symlink to place them on the data partition ? Just an idea.

I agree on the WDC Reds. Their power use is the same as the WDC Greens, their settings are already correct for RAID/linux, and they have a 3 year warranty. The greens only have one. Honestly that is a no-brainer. I'd start with new disks myself, and keep the duo v1 running for local backup (you can do a factory reset on the v1, which will clear out the OS partition).

The RN100 series is faster than the duo v1 for sure (I have both). I just benchmarked USB-2 backup to an NTFS drive, and saw 25 MB/s for a 60 GB music share. That's much faster than the duo can manage. But if you turn on all the new features (antivirus protection, bit-rot protection, and folder compression) it bogs down - so you'd need to be selective there, or go with a higher end model.

The RN300 is similar in performance to the ultra, the RN500 is similar in performance to the pro.

The main benefits of the RN300 for you is (a) you will get good performance even with all the new features turned on and (b) It can do some amount of media transcoding (with plex) for your local devices or over-the-internet streaming. So if you can stretch to it, it is a good choice.

Note you can migrate disks from an RN100 to the higher end OS6 systems w/o data loss. So if you can potentially upgrade to an RN300 later on if that is needed.

xeltros wrote:
...If you just have a problem with the log files, isn't it possible to just use a symlink to place them on the data partition ? Just an idea.

And if the data partition has a problem, then you lose the logs that tell you what went wrong? :shock: Also, he doesn't have SSH turned on.

His problem isn't necessarily just the logs. OS6 puts app storage generally on the data volume, but OS4 doesn't. ReadyDLNA's SQL database is also stored on his OS partition. There is an add-on available for the Duo v1 to move that to the data partition, but it is fairly recent.

Both OS's should provide alerts as the OS partition gets full - so people can take action before their unit ends up bricked. A boot-menu "clean OS" option might also work I guess. It's particularly an issue for systems that have been running for several years.

I disagree for the logs on the data partition as things are likely to go wrong on the OS partition before ; And when there is no data to recover you just factory default anyway.
Other problems could be addressed individually too, though they will require SSH and a certain amount of knowledge. That's the beauty of linux, but I agree that messing with a NAS is not the best idea in the world and that it would require time too.

I don't think OS6 devices will have such problems as :
1- Netgear probably implemented a better log rotate mechanism
2- BTRFS is easy to resize (though I think ARM devices use an ext4 OS partition)

Another advantage to take the 300 series over the 100 series is that (I think) it is covered by lifetime assistance (not hardware though hardware warranty should be longer than on the 1xx series too).

xeltros wrote:
I disagree for the logs on the data partition as things are likely to go wrong on the OS partition before ; And when there is no data to recover you just factory default anyway.

In my experience data volume failures are more frequent than OS partition problems. And operationally there are times when the data volume doesn't exist (or hasn't yet been mounted). Support can deal with some data volume problems w/o a reset, but I'm sure the logs help them diagnose when that can/can't be done.

Anyway, we are off-topic.

I appreciate all the advise in the thread (on and off topic), I'm still deliberating over buying the new NAS and/or more fit-for-purpose HDD's (currently running Greens).

I'm trying to work out whether to buy a 102 unit (using existing HDDs) due to the unreliability of the Duov1 system partition filling up, or whether I can afford to go all out on the 312 with ST4000DM000 hdd's.

One point of concern though, I'm getting mixed messages about their respective power consumption, especially in relation to hdd spin-down? The primary use for my NAS is a DLNA media server, followed by periodic (weekly) backups. I don't want something running at high power consumption 24x7.

You can control the system partition filling up by (1) installing the an add-on to move your DLNA database to the data partition and (2) clearing the logs from time to time. There's a link to the SPARC add-on you'd need here; viewtopic.php?f=76&t=64357&start=15#p392371

I don't understand the "mixed messages" comment, since all manufactures specify operating power and standby/sleep power in their datasheets: http://www.seagate.com/www-content/prod ... 1409us.pdf

You're better off with new drives with a new NAS - if your old drives on the the HCL then Netgear will deny support. You can also keep your old NAS running and use it for backup (a duo in JBOD mode should have enough space to backup up a rn100 or rn300 with a 4 TB volume).

My advice is to get NAS drives, not desktop drives. You get better warranties, they are designed for home NAS, and they run cool/use little power. In general I see no reason to even consider any desktop drives anymore. If you are a seagate fan, the model would be ST4000VN000. The WDC model is WD40EFRX. They are both on the hardware compatibility list for the RN102 and RN312.

The RN102 is about 3x faster than your duo, so it is more than enough to do what the duo is doing now. The RN312 supports real-time transcoding, so if you want to stream over the internet it is worth considering.