tbutler@ofb.biz
Regular Contributor
So, I've been talking to helpful folks over on the ReadyNAS forums (some of which I see are here as well!) and I am setting in on getting a ReadyNAS Ultra 4, I think. I'm pretty much sold on the whole idea that I am going to buy a ReadyNAS Ultra 4. But, I was wondering if I could ask some of the folks that already have them, why do you use a ReadyNAS over the alternatives? Or, if you picked something else over a ReadyNAS such as the NVX, I'd be curious on that count too.
I am not sure if I am making good sense of the specs, but it seems like the new ReadyNASes are located somewhere in the middle on hardware. The HP MediaSmart Servers are cheaper for what they provide (i.e. for $600 or so, you'd get a dual core Pentium-based one running at 2.5GHz). On the other hand, the new Ultras use Atom chips, which seem to put them ahead of the ARM chips in the Synology units of a similar price point (at least in theory, I realize OS optimization will make a big difference).
On the other hand, looking at Synology and QNAP, it looks like they might be more innovative on things like adding AJAX to the administrative interface (which can be a helpful thing, though not necessarily so).
My goal is primarily performance for moving RAW images and doing Time Machine backups, but also with an eye to features such as AFP and iSCSI that will allow me to get the NAS to work well with Macs. (I know the HP doesn't have either of those, though HP does make it a point to support Time Machine...)
In any case, I'm interested in the thoughts of those who are using these systems.
I am not sure if I am making good sense of the specs, but it seems like the new ReadyNASes are located somewhere in the middle on hardware. The HP MediaSmart Servers are cheaper for what they provide (i.e. for $600 or so, you'd get a dual core Pentium-based one running at 2.5GHz). On the other hand, the new Ultras use Atom chips, which seem to put them ahead of the ARM chips in the Synology units of a similar price point (at least in theory, I realize OS optimization will make a big difference).
On the other hand, looking at Synology and QNAP, it looks like they might be more innovative on things like adding AJAX to the administrative interface (which can be a helpful thing, though not necessarily so).
My goal is primarily performance for moving RAW images and doing Time Machine backups, but also with an eye to features such as AFP and iSCSI that will allow me to get the NAS to work well with Macs. (I know the HP doesn't have either of those, though HP does make it a point to support Time Machine...)
In any case, I'm interested in the thoughts of those who are using these systems.