NETGEAR is aware of a growing number of phone and online scams. To learn how to stay safe click here.
Forum Discussion
Readynaspro
Apr 04, 2023Aspirant
Replace my old NetGear NAS with what Brand now that NetGear is out of the NAS game???
Now that NetGear has left the building and abandoned the NAS, what to do? Older machines like my ReadyNAS Pro 6 are getting slow. Even when I upgraded it with OS6 and capacity (I am running 76TB)...
Readynaspro
Apr 04, 2023Aspirant
Correct, only use is storage. Some streaming to TV from NAS (works well with the old NetGear NAS). No apps.
Running over Cat5+ wiring. Built for 100 speed on wiring. Switches are gigabit switches.
So pushing the envelope on speed over Cat5+.
Typically measuring about 90Mbps upload and 600Mbps download at best. Often lot less.
The NAS is within 200 feet from the workstations, and so must run over wifi or Cat5+ (not USB).
Yes, would like to upgrade to multigig speed, but running new wires thru building is complex and problematic. It can be done. Right now no need as the workstations are not set up to take advantage of those speeds. But at some point I may string up Cat6A or Cat8 wire and change out switches to futureproof.
StephenB
Apr 04, 2023Guru - Experienced User
Readynaspro wrote:
Yes, would like to upgrade to multigig speed, but running new wires thru building is complex and problematic. It can be done. Right now no need as the workstations are not set up to take advantage of those speeds. But at some point I may string up Cat6A or Cat8 wire and change out switches to futureproof.
The question then becomes how much extra are you prepared to pay for a NAS that has multi-gig ethernet?
I'd guess a bit more, but not too much - as you might never upgrade the infrastructure.
Readynaspro wrote:
Typically measuring about 90Mbps upload and 600Mbps download at best. Often lot less.
Cat 5e should be giving you gigabit in both directions. One thing you go do with ssh is load iperf on the NAS. If you also load it on the PCs, you can measure network speed without file storage times getting in the way. But that is a sidebar.
Readynaspro wrote:
Correct, only use is storage. Some streaming to TV from NAS (works well with the old NetGear NAS). No apps.
ok. so likely DLNA.
Overall, your use is fairly basic. FWIW, so is my own. My main goal is to consolidate storage (including PC backups). I run my applications on a Windows PC that has the NAS data volume mapped to a drive letter. Separating storage from applications gives me more flexibility, and helps ensure that the NAS remains stable.
Anyway, you don't need a system with the highest-end processor, GPU acceleration, and PCIE expansion slots. No need to run virtual machines, no high-compute applications like video transcoding. Some of the more expensive NAS on your list do seemed aimed at users who do want those features. So you could rule them out.
One thing to keep in mind here - 7 to 10 years from now, any processor you get will seem slow. What you are looking for is file transfer speeds that are limited by your network (~100 MB/s for gigabit). Using some SSDs for caching or as a second volume might be a better way to boost performance than investing in a faster CPU. I suspect a lot of your current data is either archival (so slower speeds might be ok), or media files (where mechanical disks give all the speed you need for playback). Other data (particularly folders with lots of small files) benefit the most from SSDs.
All the NAS on your list have enough bays. Maybe start with the cheapest, and look for reviews that give you performance info. NasCompares is one youtuber you can check out, there are others (and review websites). That might rule out some of the cheapest models on the list. Then take a look at how much extra you'd need to pay to get 2.5-10 gb networking, and a couple of NVMe slots to give you SSD speeds for some shares later on. The idea on NVMe is that SATA SSDs might well disappear during the lifetime of the new NAS. Likely you'll end up somewhere between the cheapest and most expensive model.
- ReadynasproApr 04, 2023Aspirant
You are absolutely correct. I use my NAS in an identical way to how you use it. Identical. Data access and storage for multiple PCs with offloaded data from the PCs (zero user data on PC workstation), centralized PC backups, etc.
I use a simple Windows based program called LAN Speed Test, https://totusoft.com/lanspeed thru which you point to a file folder on the NAS to write data to, and read data from. Guessing there is a bottleneck somewhere in my network that I need to find?
But then I used a program you recommended it the past called NASTester 1.7, and that shows both read and write speed averaging 100 MB/Sec. Hmm. So it is possible the other program I was using, LAN Speed Test, is providing wrong data? It is showing write speed 1/10th of what NASTester 1.7 reports. I do prefer to use windows-based programs, rather than having to SSH some program onto the NAS, that programs like "iperf" require.
The other points you make are all very valid, and I will take them into consideration. Thank you again.
- StephenBApr 04, 2023Guru - Experienced User
Readynaspro wrote:
I use a simple Windows based program called LAN Speed Test, https://totusoft.com/lanspeed thru which you point to a file folder on the NAS to write data to, and read data from.
But then I used a program you recommended it the past called NASTester 1.7, and that shows both read and write speed averaging 100 MB/Sec.
FWIW, I've used both. Both are useful in measuring the file transfer speed.
That speed depends on disk performance, the network, and the smb server software itself. Sometimes it's useful to separate network speed from the other factors. iperf lets you do that (there is a windows version also).
As far as comparing the two program results - one thing that matters is the file size. Overall, small file transfers and folder browsing tend to be a lot slower with SMB than large file transfers. So you might check if the file size used with lanspeed matches the file size with NasTester.
- ReadynasproApr 04, 2023Aspirant
Ah good point. One that I forgot to mention. File size used in both was similar at 80MB. I also noted that a small file size took much longer to transfer the same amount of data.
I will try to find a windows version of iperf. Thanks for that suggestion.
Related Content
NETGEAR Academy

Boost your skills with the Netgear Academy - Get trained, certified and stay ahead with the latest Netgear technology!
Join Us!