Is using a USB stick a bad idea?

[Val D.]

Sorry to barge in, but my question is:
"Is using a USB stick and a 2TB HDD at the same time a bad idea?"

If the external HDD is powered from the router - definitely a bad idea. Power the HDD from a different source.

The RT-AC86U is set up as a media server with Samba and NFS shares selected.

Large file transfers lead to low memory conditions affecting routers primary function - routing. Also a bad idea.

 

[Brunotoo]

If the external HDD is powered from the router - definitely a bad idea. Power the HDD from a different source.



Large file transfers lead to low memory conditions affecting routers primary function - routing. Also a bad idea.

Thanks Val D., self powered HDD Seagate 2TB,
USB stick Lexar 8GB. all USB 2

 

[Val D.]

Thanks Val D., self powered HDD Seagate 2TB

Good, but still using the router as NAS replacement simply doesn't work. I did some tests recently with an SSD drive attached to USB3, same router model RT-AC86U. Hit it with 20GB file transfer in about 20.000 files over fast WiFi (about 380Mbps throughput, 867Mbps link speed) and this rendered the router completely unusable. RAM utilization stuck on 95%, transfer was jumping from 50MB/sec to zero back and forth, lost VPN Clients, lost WAN connection, lost WebUI also. Had to reboot it and forget about further testing. The Samba option is there, but for small files only occasionally. For streaming and/or backup purposes is really bad. Not even close to NAS, this device is not designed for this purpose. This is why it's a bad idea.

Better build yourself a Media PC as a weekend project. The one I have is based on a cheap off-lease HP 6305 Small Form Factor desktop, A10-6800 APU (AMD Quad-Core CPU + AMD Radeon GPU), 8GB DDR3 RAM (1GB reserved for the GPU), 1 x 120GB SSD (system), 2 x 2TB WD Green HDD (storage), Gigabit LAN wired to the router, has 4 x USB3 ports, even Blu-Ray disk drive (comes handy from time to time). I'm running Windows 10 on it. Not a NAS (you can run a NAS OS, if you like), but files fly on the network at maximum speeds possible (50-80MB/sec, depending on a client) and the computer is usable for other things also. My younger daughter plays Sims on it, for example.

 

[Brunotoo]

Good, but still using the router as NAS replacement simply doesn't work.

Thank you, you are most probably right.
I still would like to find out why the USB stick and the HDD can not coexist, or what I am doing wrong for that matter.

 

[Val D.]

I still would like to find out why the USB stick and the HDD can not coexist

They can, but most likely your external HDD is using NTFS file system and your router is checking the drive at boot (don't know how your router is setup). This process may take a long time on a 2TB HDD with many files. Your WAN most likely is going to come alive at some point, but you have to wait. The router has a very fast hardware... for a router, but compared to a x86 hardware is pathetic.

 

[Brunotoo]

They can, but most likely your external HDD is using NTFS file system and your router is checking the drive at boot (don't know how your router is setup). This process may take a long time on a 2TB HDD with many files. Your WAN most likely is going to come alive at some point, but you have to wait. The router has a very fast hardware... for a router, but compared to a x86 hardware is pathetic.

Yep, that's it.
In the meantime I have relieved the router from the HDD and stuck it onto another (spare) computer.
I just didn't like the idea to have yet another device running, using up power.
Thank you for your help

 

[Val D.]

I just didn't like the idea to have yet another device running, using up power.

It doesn't have to be running all the time, at least in my case. My Media PC wakes up on request, goes to sleep shortly after. Real NAS devices are power efficient, but at a high initial cost. Do the math how much electricity costs per year if you run the computer (the one HDD is now attached to) when you need that HDD, than see how much a good 2-bay NAS costs + 2 x NAS HDDs. You may come to a conclusion this PC has to run for many years before the electricity used reaches the initial cost of a NAS. A PC is a workaround, kind of "use what's available" solution, bit it works in most cases pretty well.

Thank you for your help

You are very welcome. See, it's easy to recommend something that is designed to do exactly what we need it to do, but those things cost money. This is why I prefer to discuss some practical ideas instead of sending you a link to a $500-600 best in... whatever device that you may not need at all. Now, if $500-600 is not a big amount for you, just go ahead and get what is best.

 

[PeterR]

I suggest that you consider a single board computer, e.g. Raspberry Pi, Odroid (https://www.hardkernel.com) for your media serving. They're low cost, low power and small.

 

[FTC]

Guys, I have been using the router as a NAS for 4 years already.. first a RT-AC3200 and since 6 months ago a RT-AX88U, and have not had real problems. Using a 32GB stick for entware, logging and so on, and a USB3 RAID1 4TB box (self powered) for disk services (samba and minidlna). Always with merlin firmware and having the big disk NTFS formatted. I have to say that my experience has been good. Never lost a file and only very rarely experienced problems related to samba or disk corruptions.. which were always fixable with a disk check... and performance is not bad at all.
Even if I am not a 'power user' for NAS, it is being used by all the family (8 people) to share documents and as a backup medium cable connected, so our usage is not either irrelevant.
So, I agree that a real NAS maybe a more more robust and performant solution (however note that the AX88 is able to serve 100MB/sec which is more already than many NAS models), but the router NAS function I beleive can't either be disregarded.

 

[Val D.]

but the router NAS function

It's not a NAS function, more like file share. Your new RT-AX88U has 1024MB RAM and may hold better, but it will still suffer from low RAM conditions if you attempt to transfer a large amount of data in thousands of small files, like Windows 10 boot partition backup over LAN, for example. Again, it is available in firmware options, it may work in some cases, it may fail quickly in others.

 

[FTC]

It's not a NAS function, more like file share. Your new RT-AX88U has 1024MB RAM and may hold better, but it will still suffer from low RAM conditions if you attempt to transfer a large amount of data in thousands of small files, like Windows 10 boot partition backup over LAN, for example. Again, it is available in firmware options, it may work in some cases, it may fail quickly in others.

You are right, however when I had the 3200 doing the same function (only 256MB) it did the same function quite well either.. but I am not going to pretend a real NAS is no better... just that properly configured one of these routers can also provide a satisfactory experience for file/media sharing and backup purposes, quite cheaper also.

 

[dosborne]

just that properly configured one of these routers can also provide a satisfactory experience for file/media sharing and backup purposes, quite cheaper also.

None of my simple scenarios were reliable for more than a couple of days running off the router. I didn't push it that hard, hit it will a few raspberry Pi backups. The hardware simply cannot support any extended load no matter how well, or not, it is configured. Yes, it will work for some people, under some circumstances but the issue is some poor smuck out there will put his life's work on there after reading someone "said it was ok". It's a router. It is not a NAS. At best, as pointed out above, it is a file share option. If this is your main, or only, router, do you really want to have it sucking up most of it resources doing stuff that a $20 raspberry Pi can do (arguably better) rather than doing what it is supposed to be doing, routing? (No, I'm not advocating using a $20 Pi as a true NAS either, just saying it is likely a better option than using your router, your key component to network connectivity)

Using a 32GB stick for entware, logging and so on, and a USB3 RAID1 4TB box (self powered) for disk services (samba and minidlna).

Pretty much anything goes wrong (corruption due to power failure, disconnected the, etc) and your router CPU will go to 100%.

Not saying this doesn't work for *you*, as it clearly does. Not saying it can't be done, as it clearly can. I am saying that the likelihood of it working well, for any length of time is extremely low given the variables. There are obviously ways to mitigate the potential for failure, such as running a true HDD, particularly with its own power supply as you are doing.

I do not think people are acting responsibly when it comes to these options, or this functionality, in promoting its use as a NAS.

 

[FTC]

The hardware simply cannot support any extended load no matter how well, or not, it is configured.

That is the point that I think is a misconception and my experience proves it. It may be less reliable than a separate NAS, it may be more tricky to configure or test, it may require a router with enough resources and / or certain levels of firmware, but using the router's disk sharing functionality with USB media with acceptable reliability *is* achievable, and not only for super light loads.

 

[Val D.]

it may be more tricky to configure or test

What is there to configure so much in Samba Share section of Asuswrt-Merlin firmware, for example?

 

[FTC]

What is there to configure so much in Samba Share section of Asuswrt-Merlin firmware, for example?

Not really much I suspect, but being a router that is not really focused on providing shared disk access, you may want to experiment with several filesystems and do some testing regarding performance and how permissions do work. Some things must be done by directly managing smb.conf file through scripts, plus being a little less documented than a real NAS it requires some more digging to understand how it works.

 

[Val D.]

Some things must be done by directly managing smb.conf file through scripts

Share the secret sauce and we'll test to see if there is any improvement. With it's current default settings (the ones most users will use) and NTFS file system (most external HDD drives) large file transfers with multiple small files over WiFi (20GB in 20.000 files in my test) render the router (RT-AC86U in this case) unusable. This router is based on the same hardware platform as your RT-AX88U. @Makaveli can test on exactly the same RT-AX88U, I don't have one around at the moment.

Actually, I did some tests with NTFS drive first and it was bad, then with ext4 drive, equally bad:
https://www.snbforums.com/threads/s...-cat-6-cable-with-rt-ac87u.59444/#post-518441

 

[Makaveli]

Share the secret sauce and we'll test to see if there is any improvement. With it's current default settings (the ones most users will use) and NTFS file system (most external HDD drives) large file transfers with multiple small files over WiFi (20GB in 20.000 files in my test) render the router (RT-AC86U in this case) unusable. This router is based on the same hardware platform as your RT-AX88U. @Makaveli can test on exactly the same RT-AX88U, I don't have one around at the moment.

Actually, I did some tests with NTFS drive first and it was bad, then with ext4 drive, equally bad:
https://www.snbforums.com/threads/s...-cat-6-cable-with-rt-ac87u.59444/#post-518441

What do we need to test I'm using an SSD for external storage on my side.

Just small file transfer and to monitor memory usage?

 

[Val D.]

What do we need to test

Not sure yet... let's see what configuration settings @FTC is talking about.
Some occasional file transfers work OK with default settings, this is not an issue.

 

[FTC]

Share the secret sauce and we'll test to see if there is any improvement. With it's current default settings (the ones most users will use) and NTFS file system (most external HDD drives) large file transfers with multiple small files over WiFi (20GB in 20.000 files in my test) render the router (RT-AC86U in this case) unusable. This router is based on the same hardware platform as your RT-AX88U. @Makaveli can test on exactly the same RT-AX88U, I don't have one around at the moment.

Actually, I did some tests with NTFS drive first and it was bad, then with ext4 drive, equally bad:
https://www.snbforums.com/threads/s...-cat-6-cable-with-rt-ac87u.59444/#post-518441

I am sorry to tell there is no universal secret to share. I remember playing with samba config file 2 years ago to improve treansfer performance, and it did improve a bit, but later on we saw on this forums that the effect was not the same for all router / client combination. Now I am running samba in my ax88 with default settings and it behaves as stable as I need, however the set of functions I use in the router may not be the same as others (i.e I do not use QoS, do not use AX functionality wifi, always test with windows clients, .. and so on). Never saw the router congested.

 

[heysoundude]

If the external HDD is powered from the router - definitely a bad idea. Power the HDD from a different source.

like a powered USB3 hub?

Sorry for reviving this year-old thread...but I'm gathering information ahead of a re-config of my parents' network:
1- Bridge modem to take advantage of ISP's native ipv6, and eliminate a double NAT situation <facepalm>. It's a decent (50/10) connection, and removing a speedbump or 2 might make them happier with their streaming activities
2- make the USB3 hard drive available for quick(er) file shares/transfers between machines on the LAN. I take it this will require a re-format/partition so entware&scripts can have more space on a "faster" interface than the current 4GB USB2 thumb drive