1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

NAS200 & jac4 performance

Discussion in 'Cisco/Linksys Network Storage Devices' started by BigAl.NZ, Dec 10, 2010.

  1. BigAl.NZ

    BigAl.NZ Addicted to LI Member

    I have a NAS200 which I have to support - sigh!!

    The main problems are that:
    (a) I only get about 3Mb/s
    (b) No easy way to rsync to USB disk

    I am looking at jac4 and a new version of busybox.

    What I want to know is:
    1) Will throughput performance increase?
    2) whats the best way to rsync to USB?
    3) Is there support for emailing of alerts somehow? Like SMART failures?

    Thanks in advance

    -Al
     
  2. dsc68

    dsc68 Addicted to LI Member

    1) Will throughput performance increase?

    No. The processor is the equivalent of a 486. Not even Jac can make it go any faster. I recently transferred 45Gb of media files onto my NAS200 using rsync. It took 51 hours to complete. At that rate it will take over two weeks to load up the 500Gb drive I have installed. :eek:

    2) whats the best way to rsync to USB?

    Where are you rsyncing from and to? From the internal drives to an external USB drive?

    3) Is there support for emailing of alerts somehow? Like SMART failures?

    The standard firmware has facilities for email alerts of SMART failures and disk running out of space. Look in the system configuration part of the Admin interface.
     
  3. BigAl.NZ

    BigAl.NZ Addicted to LI Member

    Ok,

    Yeah sync'ing from internal to USB attached disk.

    What about just cp to Ext USB?

    Also does the jac4 have crontab?

    Cheers

    -Al
     
  4. dsc68

    dsc68 Addicted to LI Member

    I haven't measured internal to USB speed but I wouldn't expect it to be much different.


    Yes, the standard firmware, and hence Jac4, has cron.
     
  5. jackito

    jackito LI Guru Member

    Hi,

    The transfer rate from internal HDDs to external USB drives is around 1,5Mbytes/sec. Which is pretty laaaaaammmeeee. :frown:

    Don´t expect any kind of aceptable performance from this device.....it´s not even suitable for NAS services IMHO (when more than one user needs to transfer files larger than 200MB at the same time you and the rest of users, will sufer...).

    Even doe I´m still using it to solve some simple things like printer sharing, scanner sharing, web and ftp server (of course almost no traffic at all), multimedia streaming (since I´m the only user, if more people will access it while I´m streaming then it will not be suitable even for that...)
    Just my two cents.

    Jackito
     

Share This Page