I want the fastest NAS setup possible...

[wappinghigh]

Hi guys.

I'm looking at purchasing a small NAS to run MinimServer (and also as a Sonos share)

I'll be shifting my music library (and minimserver) off a Mac Pro with WD green drives...

I'm asking around on this forum because I know there will be folks with similar interests..

I understand I can get minimserver up and running on Synology, QNAP and some Netgear NAS's

So what is the fastest small NAS set up I can buy?

I run a gigabit network via a Draytek Router.

What I want is a one or 2 bay NAS music server that absolutely snaps to life and serves up those files almost instantaneously.

So I'm actually thinking of adding an SSD into a one bay NAS. Is this a wise move.. ie will this speed up access and speed of playing the library..say over a more conventional HDD?

I will be backing up elsewhere, so redundancy is NOT an issue in the NAS purchase. What I want is speed of library access and music streaming...

The other thing I am slightly confused about is SATA II vs SATA III

Some of the new QNAPS (eg say the 2 bay TS 269pro) now have SATA3 controllers in them (6gb/sec) None of the small Synologies have SATA3, nor do any of the one BAY QNAPS> Whilst they will support a SATA3 SDD, they really only can access them at 3 gb/sec (SATA2) speeds...

So my question is what's the fastest small NAS setup for minimserver?
And do you lose much speed wise running a SATA3 SSD in one of the SATAII capable small NAS's?

Cheers

[simoncn]

(24-02-2013 10:12)wappinghigh Wrote:  So my question is what's the fastest small NAS setup for minimserver?
And do you lose much speed wise running a SATA3 SSD in one of the SATAII capable small NAS's?

There will be no difference between SSD and HDD for browsing, because MinimServer does this entirely in memory. When you select a song for playing, it might start about 0.1 second quicker from SSD compared with HDD. You won't get any benefit from SATA 3 over SATA II. Restarting MinimServer will be substantially quicker from SSD compared with HDD.

[wappinghigh]

(24-02-2013 10:54)simoncn Wrote:  

(24-02-2013 10:12)wappinghigh Wrote:  So my question is what's the fastest small NAS setup for minimserver?
And do you lose much speed wise running a SATA3 SSD in one of the SATAII capable small NAS's?

There will be no difference between SSD and HDD for browsing, because MinimServer does this entirely in memory. When you select a song for playing, it might start about 0.1 second quicker from SSD compared with HDD. You won't get any benefit from SATA 3 over SATA II. Restarting MinimServer will be substantially quicker from SSD compared with HDD.

Thanks Simon. Just the precise answer I was after. I think I'll get a QNAP TS-119 II and put in an SSD anyway: just for the heck of it.

At least it will be quite and run on the smell of an oily rag. Cheers.

[simoncn]

(24-02-2013 11:21)wappinghigh Wrote:  Thanks Simon. Just the precise answer I was after. I think I'll get a QNAP TS-119 II and put in an SSD anyway: just for the heck of it.

At least it will be quite and run on the smell of an oily rag. Cheers.

I have an SSD in my laptop, and I love the sound of silence.

The only disadvantages of SSD are the smaller maximum capacity compared with HDD, and the significantly higher cost if you go over about 120 GB. There's also the (small) possibility of catastrophic failure without any prior warning, so it's important to keep a good backup.

[NickP]

(24-02-2013 13:44)simoncn Wrote:  There's also the (small) possibility of catastrophic failure without any prior warning, so it's important to keep a good backup.

I'm pretty sure that SSDs have a shorter service life than hardware disks; the fact of writing data degrades the electronics' ability to hold data (a feature of flash memory) so an SSD's life in some environments could be considerably shorter than an HDD's. It's along the lines of an HDD having a "Mean Time Before Failure" whereas an SSD has "Mean Writes Before Failure".
N

[simoncn]

(25-02-2013 11:19)NickP Wrote:  I'm pretty sure that SSDs have a shorter service life than hardware disks; the fact of writing data degrades the electronics' ability to hold data (a feature of flash memory) so an SSD's life in some environments could be considerably shorter than an HDD's. It's along the lines of an HDD having a "Mean Time Before Failure" whereas an SSD has "Mean Writes Before Failure".
N

Does this long-term degradation cause a catastrophic failure where the complete contents are lost, or will it begin to write/read the occasional bad block at first? I had expected the latter, but I'm not completely sure.

[NickP]

(25-02-2013 12:07)simoncn Wrote:  

(25-02-2013 11:19)NickP Wrote:  It's along the lines of an HDD having a "Mean Time Before Failure" whereas an SSD has "Mean Writes Before Failure".

Does this long-term degradation cause a catastrophic failure where the complete contents are lost, or will it begin to write/read the occasional bad block at first? I had expected the latter, but I'm not completely sure.

Sorry, I don't know the failure mode; what's important is that the reliability of a solid-state device is actually lower than its hardware equivalent, contrary to virtually everything we understand. Perhaps in this application - store music & don't change it - it doesn't matter, but it should still be taken into consideration.
N

[simoncn]

(25-02-2013 15:42)NickP Wrote:  Sorry, I don't know the failure mode; what's important is that the reliability of a solid-state device is actually lower than its hardware equivalent, contrary to virtually everything we understand. Perhaps in this application - store music & don't change it - it doesn't matter, but it should still be taken into consideration.
N

I agree that SSDs are less reliable in the long term. Another point in favour of HDDs is that there's often some early warning sign when things start to go bad, such as audible retries as the controller makes multiple attempts to read a failing sector. Also, even if a sector on some part of the HDD is unreadable, data from other areas of the disk can usually still be recovered. My understanding is that the whole SSD is liable to fail catastrophically at any time without any warning. This could happen to an HDD as well, but I think it's less likely.

As I type this, I can't help wondering why I'm taking the risk of using an SSD in my laptop (i.e., main computer). Then I stop typing and listen to the wonderful sound of silence, and I remember why.

[bbrip]

For me on the NAS capacity, speed and reliablity (and cost) are the key factors. Noise is not such an issue as the NAS stands well separated from any Listening equipment anyway. You get plenty speed withva good HDD. SSD will not add anything anyway, as Network speed is the limiting factor here. And in terms of robustness, capacity and reliability, the HDD setup on a NAS is unbeatable - and will probably remian so until 2TB SSD will be around at reasonable prices

A bit different on a notebook, where the SSD adds substantial advantages in terms of speed and silence. Always keeping a good backup is essential anyway, whether SSD or HDD

[Mike48]

(24-02-2013 10:12)wappinghigh Wrote:  ...
What I want is a one or 2 bay NAS music server that absolutely snaps to life and serves up those files almost instantaneously.

Most NAS devices support various levels of RAID, which greatly reduces chances of data loss due to drive failure. With terabytes of music, I consider this a tremendously important feature. I do also back up, but I like the first-level protection of RAID, as well.

But to get RAID, you will need at least a two-bay NAS. So, I'd advise you to not to buy a single-bay one.

As to speed, music via Ethernet is rather undemanding as far as data rate, as others have pointed out. I wouldn't recommend SSD in this application; it is costly, and even at much higher cost, the available storage is far less than spinning platters.

Good luck with your setup!