Linksys NAS200 Review

[zjohnr]

Link to original article:
Linksys NAS200 Review: Low price, disappointing performance, August 17, 2007

I noticed that (today at least) the NAS200 on buy.com costs around $73. So I was wondering if might be worth it to me at this lower price.

I'm still not sure if it's worth what it costs even at that price. Maybe. Maybe not.

For one thing, I looked at the firmware release notes in the Linksys NAS200 support section to see what improvements Linksys might have done since the original firmware was released.

V3.4R79
1. Update Media Server to fix the interoperability issue with PS3.
2. Fix the issue that no email notification when disk failure is detected under RAID-1.

V3.4R75
1. Fix the long indexing time issue when media server scans certain video file format
2. Fix the slow write performance by enabling non-journaled file system -- drive reformatting is required.
3. Updated Media Server with QoS tagging support.
4. Detect and display the invalid characters entered by user in WebUI.
5. Hard Disk Configuration can be changed without reformatting the drives.
URL: http://<NAS200_IP-Address>/Administration/mode.cgi
6. Force to perform DDNS update when user click "Update Now" button.
7. Fix the issue that WebUI cannot be accessed until system boot up scan disk completes.
8. Fix that the configuration file cannot be restored if the file name includes space.
9. WebUI, "Cancel" button will be disabled while performing "Reset to Default".
10. WebUI, Add a test button for e-mail alert testing.
11. Fix the issue that the drive size can not be recognized correctly when hard drive size over 500GB under JBOD/LVM configuration.
12. Enhanced to prevent strange share folder name.
13. Fix WebUI problem for share permission assignment when there are more than 7 users.
14. Fix the IP address validation rule so that "xxx.xxx.xxx.0" will not be accepted.

V3.4R62 (First Release)​

I didn't consider item #2 of V3.4R75 as the right performance improvement approach to take. But maybe that's just me? Oh, well. Maybe I'm really just too picky ...

Then again, I'm not sure to what extent companies understand that there are people like myself who take firmware updates into account when looking at a product. I've already been in the position too often of owning a product that was essentially "orphaned at release".

Buying a product that is "less special" is one thing. Owning one that will never be more than that is doubly damning IMO.

(If they'd sell these things as "hobby kits" along with a support package which made it easy for customers to update write their own firmware updates, then maybe it would be worth it. )

-irrational john

 

[thiggins]

It will still be a slow NAS, incapable of speed above 12.5 MB/s since it has a 10/100 Ethernet port.

 

[zjohnr]

If only it were THAT good ...

It will still be a slow NAS, incapable of speed above 12.5 MB/s since it has a 10/100 Ethernet port.

I'd be "happy" to live with that, provided it actually got within shouting distance ... or even, say, halfway towards ... that limit. But apparently it doesn't.

The D-link DNS-321 for around $91 (after the hassle of a $30 rebate) appears to be the better choice at this moment in time.

At this point it's still not something I "must have" so I'll probably continue to mull it over.

Ironically, what I keep thinking about is paying more to ostensibly get less by building my own. Still might do that. If the faults in a system are due to my own failings, not those of a manufacturer, I'm a lot more forgiving.

As a FWIW aside, I continue to be interested in any further additions or updates to your "how-to" articles on how to put together a low power home brewed NAS. So long as I can get performance at least as good as moving files via my 802.11n (e.g. usually 7-8 MB/sec) then it's no higher than "3" on my priority list. Ahead of that would be keeping the 24/7 power/cooling as low as possible and the unit as compact as possible.

I don't recall seeing any articles with suggestions on how to make a more compact home-brewed NAS. Perhaps I just haven't looked closely enough ... ?

-irrational john

 

[thiggins]

I don't recall seeing any articles with suggestions on how to make a more compact home-brewed NAS. Perhaps I just haven't looked closely enough ... ?

http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/content/view/30717/79/

 

[Unregistered]

Just letting you know

FYI, the NAS200 runs on an RDC 3210 which is basically an emulator for an 80486 based PC at 133MHz.

This basically means it's too slow to be useful if you want to are serious about storing data on it. Count on no faster than 6MB/sec in the most fortunate circumstances, or less than 4MB/sec when used seriously. This is a hardware limit that no firmware will ever fix.

But it's a sexy box and (being basically a PC running Linux) it's also very hackable if you're into that sort of thing. I've been successful at enabling Telnet, adding Dropbear SSH server/client, and running other Linux distros such as Gentoo. A port of OpenWRT is in the works, and others have been able to compile programs such as a Torrent client and an NFS server. Check out the Linksysinfo.org NAS forums for more info.

Of course, if you don't like the slow hardware but you do like the looks, you can always go for a "brain transplant": take out the motherboard, put in a small Pico motherboard and run oh... I don't know, FreeNAS or so...

===Jac

 

[zjohnr]

Sounds interesting ... to look at

Of course, if you don't like the slow hardware but you do like the looks, you can always go for a "brain transplant": take out the motherboard, put in a small Pico motherboard and run oh... I don't know, FreeNAS or so...
===Jac

I don't know if I'd ever get around to actually doing something like that, but I'd be curious to look at the final result from someone else's efforts. I'd also be curious about just what hardware they "transplanted".

You wouldn't happen to have a link to pictures or article about such a hack, would you?

-irrational john