AX86u - Problem with samba Memory allocation error

[bbunge]

I have for test Synology cheap NAS ds120j it has less ram than my AX86u and poor CPU but it handles smb correctly. So I think there is a problem with smb implementation on Asus.
I would like to stay with this NAS but it has problem with disk hibernation and is to loud during the night.

Somebody has asked about alternative firmware. I've tested router on merlin firmware, stock firmware and stock beta firmware and problem exists on all of them.

The fan speed on the DS120j can be adjusted lower. The HDD should be able to hibernate, mine does just fine, but the DSM can be set on a schedule to power off at night and back on in the morning. WOL can be enabled to use the router to turn the NAS on remotely.

 

[sfx2000]

some people are sensitive to noise, or they use in an environment where the noise is not welcome (audo production, or the home theater use case, last things one wants is the HDD clicking away...)

For the DS120j... WD Reds (not Pro) are very quiet, both for idle (spinning) and access... Most recently, there's been a concern about the Red's and SMR - and it's a legit concern for those who run in an array of two or more drives, but the 120j is a single bay device, so that shouldn't been an issue.

I have Seagate 3TB drives in my NAS (QNAP TS453Pro) and they are fairly noisy, but they're also 7 years old (I never spin down drives)

A dedicated NAS is going to be more reliable and better performing than a Router for file sharing - I think in OP's use case, for the router he has, using his DS120j is the better choice.

 

[RMerlin]

I have for test Synology cheap NAS ds120j it has less ram than my AX86u and poor CPU but it handles smb correctly. So I think there is a problem with smb implementation on Asus.

Which supports what most people are saying here: if you need NAS functionality, you should use an actual NAS. The Synology OS is designed around file sharing and runs a much newer version of Samba and the Linux kernel, while Asuswrt is designed around traffic routing, runs a much older version of Samba and the kernel, and is atunned toward traffic latency, not toward running userspace applications.

 

[Jherb]

A related question, given the SMB implementation in ASUS routers is glitchy.

Is there a practical difference between a dedicated NAS, and just setting up a pc running windows and enabling SMB shares accessible on the LAN. The PC would be connected to the router via gigabit ethernet, and the drives would be internal SATA and external USB3 drives.

I'm curious if there is any practical difference in speed, accessibility, or something else I'm missing.

Thanks for entertaining my learning curve here.

 

[L&LD]

What you're missing is stability, reliability, and dependability, long-term.

This isn't the same as taking a VW Bug and making it as fast, or faster, than a supercar. It is about loading up a school bus with textbooks and getting that payload, intact, into the next decade (or longer), with minimal fuss.

 

[Jherb]

What you're missing is stability, reliability, and dependability, long-term.

This isn't the same as taking a VW Bug and making it as fast, or faster, than a supercar. It is about loading up a school bus with textbooks and getting that payload, intact, into the next decade (or longer), with minimal fuss.

Thanks. Can you clarify why it would be less stable, reliable, etc. PCs run for years nonstop, and I assumed a NAS was just a limited PC. What part would be less stable? Is it the OS?

I appreciate the explanation.

 

[L&LD]

NAS OS's, hardware specifications, NAS drives, etc., are all focused on one thing; keeping your data alive. And, if/when a disaster occurs, having a known path to get that data back (in most cases).

Yes, PCs can also run for years non-stop, but most examples are of using those PCs for one main (or a few smaller) single task(s). A NAS you don't directly 'touch' every day, a PC you do, and that, along with updates for software, hardware, and other things you may plug into a general-purpose computer, all open up the possibility of throwing a wrench into that system at almost any time.

A NAS manufacturer only has to worry about their proprietary hardware, their supported HDDs, and their intricately developed OS.

Huge differences.

 

[Jherb]

Ok, got it. I've never had a NAS, so this is all very informative for me.

Thanks again.

 

[sfx2000]

A NAS manufacturer only has to worry about their proprietary hardware, their supported HDDs, and their intricately developed OS.

Yes, the OS is usually tuned specifically for the task at hand - tweaks that for other purposes actually might impair performance.

 

[bbunge]

Thanks. Can you clarify why it would be less stable, reliable, etc. PCs run for years nonstop, and I assumed a NAS was just a limited PC. What part would be less stable? Is it the OS?

I appreciate the explanation.

Some will also say it is not wise to use Windows OS as a file server for security reasons. Yes, it will work but the number of connections will be limited (5 I believe). Most NAS use Linux OS of some sort that far surpasses Windows in security and performance. Yes, you could load a PC with Linux and have a rather good File storage server.

 

[Tech9]

Is there a practical difference between a dedicated NAS, and just setting up a pc running windows and enabling SMB shares accessible on the LAN.

Read here:

Cheap NAS to replace USB functionality + SMB that my router sucks at?

https://www.snbforums.com/threads/rt-ax92u-usb-smb-seems-fragile-crashes-router.73108/ I have a nice USB SSD and I simply want to access it for light usage across the house. Main use is watching movies, but obviously once in a while I need to copy things across, which is when the rt-ax92u...

www.snbforums.com

 

[sfx2000]

Some will also say it is not wise to use Windows OS as a file server for security reasons. Yes, it will work but the number of connections will be limited (5 I believe). Most NAS use Linux OS of some sort that far surpasses Windows in security and performance. Yes, you could load a PC with Linux and have a rather good File storage server.

I think as long as the NAS device is kept inside the LAN, anything would be a decent choice - the prebuilt units from the specialist firms (QNAP, Synology) are turn key - e.g. plug it in, walk thru a couple of setup wizards, and one is ready to go...

Windows can be a decent solution - I wouldn't suggest Home, but Pro installed on a 1-liter box, and a couple of externals - left alone to be just a storage host, and kept patched up - it would be fine...

Mac Mini can also be a very handy little NAS box to support all platforms...

The upside on the prebuilts is a warranty and customer support - going DIY, while perhaps fun as a project - if something goes wrong...

Last thing - NAS type of devices have a tendancy to collect a lot of data, some of it might be important - so having a backup strategy for it is a key consideration.

 

[Tech9]

if something goes wrong...

Depending on knowledge DIY setup can be much better hardware and much faster fixable. Ready made NAS box - phone calls, RMA and with no knowledge whatsoever and perhaps no backup - data loss. I had one failed 2-bay NAS box and the way the data was recovered wasn't user friendly.

 

[RMerlin]

I had one failed 2-bay NAS box and the way the data was recovered wasn't user friendly.

Regardless of the chosen solution, if you don't have a backup, recovery will always be hit-or-miss.

One benefit of a NAS system - in case of hardware failure, you quite often can replace the NAS with a new one (if out of warranty), plug your old disks in, and be up and running within 20 minutes. I did it once to replace a dead QNAP (the only failed QNAP in 10+ years of using them for multiple customers, and the failure was that well-known design flaw in that Celeron CPU that would frequently die within a few years).

 

[sfx2000]

Depending on knowledge DIY setup can be much better hardware and much faster fixable. Ready made NAS box - phone calls, RMA and with no knowledge whatsoever and perhaps no backup - data loss. I had one failed 2-bay NAS box and the way the data was recovered wasn't user friendly.

Nice overview of DIY (TrueNAS/unRAID) vs prebuilt from QNAP/Synology...

TLDR - really depends on the skillset of the person, and how much effort one wants to put into it.

Synology/QNAP versus Build Your Own NAS

Is it Better to Buy a NAS or Build One Yourself? Have you ever looked at the cost of popular Network attached storage devices from brands such as Synology and QNAP, then looked at the price tag and thought "wait...HOW MUCH?!? I could build my own NAS server for much less than that"? Well, you are n

nascompares.com

If one isn't comfortable with building up a PC from scratch, then perhaps a pre-built solution is the better option - that being said, both TrueNAS and unRAID are very good packages with good community support.

 

[sfx2000]

the only failed QNAP in 10+ years of using them for multiple customers, and the failure was that well-known design flaw in that Celeron CPU that would frequently die within a few years

I remember that post you shared - yes, was very nice to pop the drives over to the replacement and things came up with minimal effort.

I have one of those QNAP boxes (TS-453Pro) with the AVR54 issue - it's been solid to date, but I'm proactively replacing it as it's getting on in years in any case. I do back it up one a week to a couple of external USB HDD's, which is common sense even without the Intel issue...

Nothing against QNAP - it's a life cycle issue with the Intel CPU that has affected many vendors.

That issue basically affects every Silvermont/Airmont based device out there, not just limited to specific SKU's/models

 

[Tech9]

TLDR - really depends on the skillset of the person, and how much effort one wants to put into it.

Exactly. Like in another thread we "disagree" on some other things. There was a thread here a person asked for DIY NAS and following some folks advice ended up with thousand dollars spent on drives in an older PC first and later upgraded to unnecessary overkill for NAS hardware for even more money. He could perhaps get a prebuilt NAS box for cheaper and set it up much faster with exactly the same end result. I was just watching the thread. When people don't know well what they are doing sometimes things go irreversibly wrong in either direction.

 

[rborth]

I remember that post you shared - yes, was very nice to pop the drives over to the replacement and things came up with minimal effort.

I have one of those QNAP boxes (TS-453Pro) with the AVR54 issue - it's been solid to date, but I'm proactively replacing it as it's getting on in years in any case. I do back it up one a week to a couple of external USB HDD's, which is common sense even without the Intel issue...

Nothing against QNAP - it's a life cycle issue with the Intel CPU that has affected many vendors.

That issue basically affects every Silvermont/Airmont based device out there, not just limited to specific SKU's/models

Thank you sfx2000 for adding to my education, I guess? :>)

Silvermont - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Cisco stated failures of Atom C2000 processors can occur as early as 18 months of use with higher failure rates occurring after 36 months.[22]" Thanks Intel. I don't consider 18 months of use with higher failure rates occurring after 36 months to be archival storage.

I get the back up to the back up concept but... My current NAS storage, local LAN only in 3 locations, went in service in 2010. One failed in 2019. I'll bend over and kiss the remining two despite there slow through put. Which is why I'm looking to improve on them.

LibGuides: Early Photographic Formats and Processes in the Special Collections and Archives Research Center: Glass Plate Negatives (1850s to 1920s)

LibGuides: Early Photographic Formats and Processes in the Special Collections and Archives Research Center: Glass Plate Negatives (1850s to 1920s)

guides.library.oregonstate.edu

I was able to print a B&W 4x5 glass negative with a blacksmith scene including poster from 1908 in the late 1980s, looking at it right now, now that's archival. My intention was to scan it someday. Why bother? Newer is not always better!