Noob Is In Way Over His Head!

[therock]

Hi,

I have posted here before but have realized I'm in too deep and need to drop back and punt.

I'm trying to learn NAS and pick hardware at the same time and it's tough. I am keying in on speed first then features and find I do not understand NAS speed ratings in comparison to a good ISP cable connection.

So...... what is fast when it comes to NAS when say a client is downloading an image file from my NAS via FTP? Which one can be the bottle neck on my end? The NAS setup or the Cable connection speed?

If it will help someone answer I'll say that I am now looking at the Synology DS209+. I was looking at 4 and 5 drive bay units and realized for my application I need to come down to earth. The money for this unit is high but the quality, features and SNB reviews of the speed have me aiming at it. My application will be working with large image files and 255GB of music. For now all through FTP and perhaps one of the other features for moving the music.

Believe me I'm googling my A$$ off and any direction here will be gratefully appreciated.


I'm not a total Noob in all respects. I build my own computers. See my configuration vitals below.

Thanks

Gigabyte GA-P45-UD3P Motherboard.
Intel Q6600 CPU.
8GB Corsair RAM.

All Gigabit through a Trendnet TEW-633GR CAT 5E wire.

Comcast Cable.

 

[thiggins]

When someone is downloading a file from you, they are using your Internet uplink. What's your Internet uplink speed? Unless you have a fiber connection, it's probably below 1 Mbps, which is 125 KBytes/sec, which even the cheapest NASes can support.

 

[therock]

Thanks, To You,

I'm getting there.

Next on the list is remote access to my NAS and reading about the dynamic and static IP thing out of curiosity I called Comcast asking about a static IP and was told I had to go with a business account @ $29.00 more per month so that's out.

Looks like I'll have to go with one of those services out there. Can I get a referral? I'm in the US.

In this conversation with the Comcast rep I was told the speeds I currently have are 6MB download and 678KB upload. I do like my cable performance. I know the repair techs well and they made sure the lines in my area were up to par.
As for the business speeds they would be increased to 7MB down and 1MB up.

Anyway it looks like the Synology DN209+ will be on my desk soon. It will be 10 or more days until I pull the trigger. Meanwhile I cram.

 

[thiggins]

SmallNetBuilder uses TZO for dynamic DNS.

With only 678 KB upload on your Internet connection, the DS209+ is overkill if over-the-net downloads are your primary concern. Any NAS that supports an FTP server (and most do) will be fine.

 

[therock]

SmallNetBuilder uses TZO for dynamic DNS.

With only 678 KB upload on your Internet connection, the DS209+ is overkill if over-the-net downloads are your primary concern.

Thanks thiggins, Stick With Me Please,

Tell me, what kind of speeds would appreciate a unit with the performance of the DS209+?

I thought upload speeds would be more of a priority to me since I would be uploading to it from my desktop. Clients would be downloading batches of image files up to 22MB each.

The above being bitter sweet news if I'm correct in my speeds and stuck with them I can afford a unit with more bays.

Editing In: I would like your thoughts on the following.
The 675 number just didn't seem right. I never get frustrated with my connection speeds so I have been running Webb based speed tests with speedtest.net. I know these tests are not reguarded very high but they are enough to be considered.
Doing tests from Atlanta to Tampa I get 1372 kb/s up and 11290 kb/s down as an average. Sometimes it is much better.

What tears me up is how dyslexic I am with computer file movement speeds. Some authors will type kb or Kb, or KB and the numbers will not correspond.

Thanks

 

[MoralDelima]

What he's trying to say is that your bottleneck is your cable internet connection. You can upload at 87.66 KB/s (assuming a perfect world with 0 loss and a perfect connection uploading to ONE client and doing only that) max. However, if you check the router LAN to WAN throughput charts, or your router's review, you'll see that the router can handle 241MB per second. So the connection can only handle .. 3.1% of your router's output at its best. Most every NAS drive is only going to be able to transfer at LEAST 1000Kb up (and much, much more) and your NAS will be pushing 10,000 Kb up.

So basically, look at it as trying to spray a firehose through a straw. The firehose is your LAN + NAS and the straw is your cable connection. It's your weakest link.

 

[therock]

Thanks,

Geesh! What was a labor of love is now getting to be a chore. I want to thank you guys again for the patience shown to this old wrinkled photographer trying to play techno catch up.
Getting ready to retire and keep busy through photography I have been getting published lately and do have the need for a way for them to fetch proofs.

I love the fire hose through the straw thing. I have the cash for the hot rod stuff but if it's just going to sit in the garage I'm not going to build it.

I compromised volume for speed in the DS209+ but see now I have it reversed.
It looks like I will serve myself better with a 4 disk or more box with a user friendly interface.

So thiggins, it looks like you may have been right the first time reccomending the LaCie 5big. I don't want to stream but make available Webb access to browse folders of pictures and music.
What is not clear is if the Lacie 5big has FTP or a software bundle for showing image thumbs when accessed. I do have WS_FTP Home and a network license for Thumbs Plus Pro.

The above said now that I have the speed per my application clear in my mind I'm listening for other recommendations.

Thanks

 

[scotty]

A quick note - there are 8 bits to a byte. So for example, 8 Megabits per second is equal to 1 Megabyte per second. Bits should always be displayed as little b's, and bytes are big B's, hence MB is megabytes, Mb is megabits. Yes it is a little confusing because different industries use either format. Your internet connection is usually advertized in Megabits, but hard drive and file performance is usually measured in mega/kilobytes per second. Just divide or multiple by 8 as applicable.

What people are trying to tell you is that virtually any NAS can massively outperform your internet connection. If you have a look at the NAS charts, you'll see speeds generally start at about 5MB/s and go up from there (up to about 70MB/s) (note - megaBYTES). As Tim mentioned, most residential internet connections give you about .5 - 1Mbit/s upload (that's about 125KB/s) - nowhere near what even the 'slowest' NAS's are capable of. Just about any NAS with FTP support will be plenty sufficient (even if you have a much, much faster connection). Most NAS's would even be sufficient for a pretty hefty fibre connection.

 

[MoralDelima]

Is there any reason you want to host these photos yourself? It seems it would be much simpler to me if you got some hosting and then uploaded the zip files/packages/whatever and then just e-mailed them the links. Once you've uploaded the crap, you don't have to worry about how fast YOUR internet is, you're limited by the server's upstream (which, even a half decent host is going to be double what you're going up). Also, provided you aren't getting an expensive host or a shirtty host, it'd be cheaper and less down time and you'd be able to serve multiple clients at once.

You might need a HD or a NAS for backup purposes, but as far as distribution of content I think a hosting solution would work out way better for you. You can even get FREE hosting solutions with no ads.

 

[therock]

Is there any reason you want to host these photos yourself? It seems it would be much simpler to me if you got some hosting and then uploaded the zip files/packages/whatever and then just e-mailed them the links. Once you've uploaded the crap, you don't have to worry about how fast YOUR internet is, you're limited by the server's upstream (which, even a half decent host is going to be double what you're going up). Also, provided you aren't getting an expensive host or a shirtty host, it'd be cheaper and less down time and you'd be able to serve multiple clients at once.
You might need a HD or a NAS for backup purposes, but as far as distribution of content I think a hosting solution would work out way better for you. You can even get FREE hosting solutions with no ads.

Interesting!

 

[paulgref]

as long as you are current on your bill you ip from comcast will not change - i havent had the time to check mine at all but you should be fine with just a reg account not a biz one unless u need the better upload speed

you could also use no-ip.com if your ip is really dynamic

cheers

pg