Anyone have any real world opinions about their relative performance? Say with streaming one client and perhaps a decent amount of ISCSI activity (say four concurrent recordings)? Trying to decide if it's worth bumping up to the Pro.
I realize they are old models however I'm getting the Ultra at basically the price of the included hard drive and the Pro wouldn't be that much more and since both will run OS 6 I figure I'll have fun with that... as such they aren't that old per se.
Do note that we don't support running OS6 on our legacy NAS units. So if you run into issues you may need to restore from backup. It is even more important than it would be otherwise that you maintain good backups.
I must say it was easy to upgrade to OS 6. Of course I had no data to worry about and was using a test drive. 🙂 I need to transfer some data off the drive I'll be using for real before I can actually begin.
Regarding OS 6 (I know I should already know the answer)... If I install just one drive (3TB) do I need to worry about how it's installed as in type of RAID/file structure? At some point I might want to install another (3TB) and will how I install the first drive determine my options? Such as with one drive can I switch between Flex-RAID and X-RAID2? Which I presume would leave all options open.
The first disk inserted determines the smallest disk size on the NAS, so if you insert the 3tb first then you won't be able to use other spare disks with smaller capacity. X-raid 2 will by default do raid1 when there are two disks, raid5 when there are more. You can disable it and use flex-raid to fine tune your choices if needed. If you want to use flex-raid disable x-raid before inserting the second disk. I think you can switch from x-raid to flex-raid but I'm not sure the reverse is possible without a factory reset or at least a volume deletion.
The first disk inserted determines the smallest disk size on the NAS, so if you insert the 3tb first then you won't be able to use other spare disks with smaller capacity.
That's true for an xraid volume, but of course with flexraid you can create a new volume with a smaller disk (without losing the original volume).
xeltros wrote:
I think you can switch from x-raid to flex-raid but I'm not sure the reverse is possible without a factory reset or at least a volume deletion.
You can certainly switch to flexraid. If you have a single volume you can also switch back.
You can switch back and forth ? That's good to know. if I have two drives in raid0, when switching back to x-raid it would expect raid1, 5 or maybe 6. How will it correct the problem ? if I have a raid 5 with 4 disks can I convert it to a raid5 3 disks with that ? (given there is enough space)
You can switch back and forth ? That's good to know. if I have two drives in raid0, when switching back to x-raid it would expect raid1, 5 or maybe 6. How will it correct the problem ?
You couldn't. Well even if the GUI lets you it would stay at RAID-0 and you couldn't expand it.
xeltros wrote:
if I have a raid 5 with 4 disks can I convert it to a raid5 3 disks with that ? (given there is enough space)
No. Flex-RAID volumes are not shrinkable either. However using Flex-RAID you can have multiple volumes.
I now have the drive installed (the one I will be using) and I'm copying files over to it via a SMB Share and iSCSI. While both are underway I'm getting up to 90 MB/s with SMB and less than 1 MB/s with iSCSI? I haven't tried transferring files via iSCSI by itself yet but I'm hoping it's just being taxed by the SMB activity. I have Snapshots turned off.
OK looking around I found if I Disable Sync Writes I jump to 17 MB/s while it's still fighting with the SMB copying which drops down to 77 MB/s or so...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Btw the Ultra 2 Plus uses the same CPU as the Pro 2.
Thanks. Yeah I was pretty sure they used the same CPU. I found I can live with the Ultra so I'll sell it and use the Ultra Plus for now as I ran across one.
Today I configured the Ultra Plus and after installing OS 6 on it I swapped for the Ultra's drive. Haven't really played around but doing a SMB file copy on the Ultra I think it leveled off to around 80-90MB/s and the Plus is doing 100-110MB/s. So with my configuration I get a little kick.
