Buffalo LinkStation or PC Server

Hi,

I am looking to upgrade my network storage.

Currently i Have a PC running with:
Windows 2000 Server
P4 2.4Ghz
1Gb RAM
Adaptec 1200A Raid
2 x ATA100 Hitachi 120Gb Drives in RAID 1 setup. (gives about 100Gb storage)
1Gbps wire Intel Network Card
1Gbps Netgear switch
5 PC's on 100Mbps wire.

I am thinking that the RAID controller/HDD's are the bottleneck here due to the ATA100 connection.

so, i would like to replace the PC server with a Gigabit LinkStation Network Storage Center - 250GB. This gets good reveiws, but im wondering if anybody can tell me if it will be faster than the PC file server i have just now.

I would appreciate any opinion on this.

Thanks - any happy new year to all!

Stuart.

 

Using the external file server will show immediate speed benefits. These disapate over time as the drive fills.

Lets say you move to ATA133 on your existing RAID (I am not recommending) this. Then the comparison would be to the benefits of ATA100 vs. ATA133, and the benefits are too small to matter.

Lets say we replace your 5400 rpm. drives with 7200 drives. The benefits are measureable and are significant.

Lets see where the external file server would speed things up:
. It likely has 7200 rmp drives, with cache on the drive; and a caching controller;
. Its controller interface to the drive, ignoring the cache, is of little importance relative to what you have now;
. The Gigabit connection does not matter -- the slowest link always wins -- which is the drive controller-to-drive interface.

Recommendation: while no phenomenal results should be expected, using the external file system device reduces processor load on the original server, and has updated components.

 

HI,

Thanks for the quick reply. I suppose the only thing faster than the buffalo drive would be a dedicated file server with Raid SATA to increase the data rate between drive and controller.

I need to upgrade anyway as the existing drives are showing there age with errors etc. I was debating over replacing them or installing a buffalo system. Backup would be ok, as the Buffalo can do backups to another drive in the network, or even remote over ftp so i wouldnt be losing too much redundacy.

I would love to hear from anybody that has a buffalo drive and what they think. I beleive it to be the only gigabit drive in the capacity leage.

I cant find if the Buffalo internals are SATA or ATA.

Thanks,
Stuart

 

There is no practical difference in speed between SATA and ATA at the moment.

This is not a design limitation in SATA, but an implementation issue.

Since your are going SATA to gigbit, however, you will notice a speed improvement. This will disappate as the drive fills.

ATA is more than capable of saturating your gigabit bandwidth on equal terms with SATA.

 

I use Buffalo Linkstations for file storage in a couple of our branch offices. My experience is that they are OK, but not as reliable as a dedicated server. Therefore, I would recommend upgrading the server rather than replace it with a Buffalo, for reliability reasons.

The main issue I've seen is recovering from power outages. The buffaloes can be a bit temperamental getting back up and running. Not too much of a problem if I was on site, but has been an issue when branch staff have to re-enable. In the larger branch where I used a Buffalo users often (weekly) complained of problems accessing the drive. These problems went away when I replace the Buffalo with an Evesham SilverStor.

Personally, I wouldn't use the linkstations for main file storage. Where I find them really useful is as a backup to meatier NAS products (I use an Evesham SilverStor in a 10 user branch office and backup to Buffalo), and in SOHO (for example a two user office).