Re: modern cheap NAS fully supported by Debian?
On Sat, 2012-08-04 at 13:18 +0200, Spitz, Richard wrote:
> > I love my orion based QNAP TS-109, and currently would upgrade to
> > QNAP
> > TS-119 if I would have the need, but QNAP isn't cheap. So maybe the
> > Plug variants mentioned on the page instead.
>
> I've been following this discussion with great interest, since I am in
> a similar
> situation.
>
> What is the real advantage of running Debian on a NAS? I'm presently
> using a
> NSLU2 under Debian for collecting and graphing energy data in my home.
> Now I
> need a NAS, whose primary purpose is central data storage and backup,
> while
> using a minimal amount of energy. I am concerned that running Debian on
> the
> NAS and make it take over the NSLU2's tasks might counteract the energy
> saving features of the NAS, such as disk spindown.
>
> Any ideas or experience on this?
>
I'm currently using Debian Squeeze on a QNAP TS-119 (The old fan-less
model) for over a year now. My experiences are very good. The system is
officially supported by Debian. Installing went very smooth, and most
remarkably: I never had any serious problem even though i have a very
weird configuration (I'm running several Wordpress blogs inside Linux
Containers (LXC)). For me, converting my QNAP TS-119 from a dedicated
NAS device into a general purpose computer was definitively worth the
trouble.
Here's a link to my hardware:
http://freedomboxblog.nl/about/hardware/
Just like you, i too am interested in energy consumption. My setup uses
about 11 Watt when idle. This could be reduced to 9 Watt if a more
energy efficient hard-disk is used. My current hard-disk uses 4.5 Watt
when idle. A few months ago i built a 23 Watt Intel desktop system for
which i used a wd5000azdx hard-disk that only consumes 2.1 Watt when
idle. I think that spinning down the hard-disk in a full Debian system
is challenging (impossible for my system that hosts several websites).
Advice: buy a hard-disk with low (idle) power consumption.
Best regards,
Rob.
http://freedomboxblog.nl
Reply to: