RNDP2000 vs RNDU2000 Performance

Yes. There's only so much performance you can get out of a gigabit ethernet connection. With gigabit the theoretical max would be about 120 MB/s. Usually anything around the 100 MB/s mark is considered to be pretty good. Of course the drive in the client machine can also be a bottleneck. If you have a SSD in the client machine that is a big help.

You could get better performance on e.g. the 300 series or 516, but with a gigabit ethernet connection you'd still be limited to not too much more than what you are getting now. A key advantage of e.g. the 300 series and 516 series is being able to do more while still getting high performance.

With the 716x and 10 gigabit you could of course go a lot faster again, but you'd also need a NIC that supports that for your PC.

mdgm wrote:
You could get better performance on e.g. the 300 series or 516, but with a gigabit ethernet connection you'd still be limited to not too much more than what you are getting now. A key advantage of e.g. the 300 series and 516 series is being able to do more while still getting high performance.

I picked up the RNDU2120 for only $99 (new) and hopefully I'll sell off the 2TB drive for not much less. So I have next to nothing invested and pretty much just playing around. The initial copying of files is brutal but once they are there only iSCSI will get any activity at all. I'll use it for WMC recordings... up to four concurrently. The movies stored on it via SMB will pretty much collect dust being served only to a dedicated room a couple of times a month.

I purchased it more or less to try out the "hacking" of OS 6 on it. More than likely it will be sold before long.

Oops, I was thinking you were talking about the 104 (posting late in the evening).

The 300 series would be a little faster than the Ultra 2, but probably not too much. The 300 series has double the RAM (2 GB vs 1GB) and a faster CPU.

Does this Ultra 2 have the 1.5 Ghz or the 1.8 Ghz CPU?

mdgm wrote:
The 300 series would be a little faster than the Ultra 2, but probably not too much. The 300 series has double the RAM (2 GB vs 1GB) and a faster CPU.

CharlesR, note that you can upgrade the RAM on your Ultra 2 from 1GB to 2GB for less than $20: https://www.readynas.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=110&t=52557&start=15#p379994

mdgm wrote:
Does this Ultra 2 have the 1.5 Ghz or the 1.8 Ghz CPU?

One site states single core Atom D425 1.8 GHz. Performance isn't an issue for me based on my needs virtually anything will more than keep up. Just out of curiosity I wonder if it's faster than the RN100 series and their relative power consumption. The Ultra uses 38W with 2x2 drives. The RN102 uses 31W with x drives as I didn't see it stated.

My guess is that an ultra should outperform an RN102. Drive power needs vary considerably, so you really can't compare the the power specs unless you know the drives in both. Even then, I'd prefer a comparison with identical drive models in both NAS.

It might show in the logs or else a

# cat /proc/cpuinfo

would tell you which CPU you have.

I agree an Ultra 2 should outperform a 102.

mdgm wrote:
# cat /proc/cpuinfo

Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU D405 @ 1.50GHz

OK since I have the Ultra running like a champ I decided to upgrade to a Ultra Plus. Should I use a spare drive and upgrade the Plus to OS 6 than swap it for my current Ultra OS 6.0 drive? I have a copy of my data elsewhere so I could wipe the OS 6 drive and install it fresh but I don't think that's required...

Yes, using a spare drive to update the Ultra Plus to OS6, confirming the update was successful then powering down, removing your spare drive and migrating your disks(s) across would be the way to go.

Btw the Ultra 2 Plus uses the same CPU as the Pro 2.