ICYBOX NAS?

sirgypsalot · 8 Mar 2007 at 13:20

I was wondering if anyone could tell me the difference between the two IcyBox NASs - the 900-B and the 2000-B, Is it just the processor speed?

I'm hoping to use them as a media backup solution with one attached to my router that can be seen by XBMC (even with the PC off), and the other attached via USB that I can regularly duplicate everything onto.

I was ideally looking for a NAS that could do a scheduled backup to another attached drive overnight (or when PC is off), but they all seem to have some other limitation such as proprietary software, or no support for SMB shares, or no spindown, or difficult expansion. Any experience of a NAS soultion that satisfies all these!?

Thanks, S

sirgypsalot · 12 Mar 2007 at 15:36

no-one has any thoughts!!!? :confused:

DataVampire · 18 Mar 2007 at 01:29

sirgypsalot said:
no-one has any thoughts!!!?

to be honest i always feal they are a waste of money, you could pick up a very cheap p3 computer and do the exact same thing, yes i know you woudl have a avery large box, but all the bette rto fill it up wiht hds, not to mention, you could use custom software, ie choose whatever ftp software ect you wanted, not to mention, p4s are quite cheap now, you would only need a monitor/mouse/keyboard to install the os once, then use remote desktop or vnc or something similar,i have set a few of these up for freinds, it worked out about £50 dearer, but then, they can add a fair few hds to it.

squiffy · 18 Mar 2007 at 01:33

I have a dual HD NAS D-Link DNS-323. Better than using a old PC IMO (and quieter) lower power consumption for another.

DataVampire · 18 Mar 2007 at 01:50

squiffy said:
I have a dual HD NAS D-Link DNS-323. Better than using a old PC IMO (and quieter) lower power consumption for another.

wrong, low noise and low power consumption psus are cheap now, you cannot get the flexability as you can with one you build yourself, and you will find, imo, th eold pc is a lot faster too, as the cpu/mem is a lot faster jsut to name two. customiseable nics, wifie cards, easily upgradeable, who says thats better lmao

squiffy · 18 Mar 2007 at 01:54

Because it does what I want it to do. Simple, just LAN storage, no need for other hardware. I have a P3 933mhz system spare which could be used, but I would need a new ATX case, new PSU. oh and a SATA controller too. So you're looking well over £100. oh yeah would need new CPU cooler, as stock fan is really loud.

Thinking about getting another NAS with Slimserver on and just the music collection, saves me having the HTPC on.

As for speed, copying 1GB to the NAS over the LAN takes 2 minutes.

DataVampire · 18 Mar 2007 at 02:06

squiffy said:
Because it does what I want it to do. Simple, just LAN storage, no need for other hardware. I have a P3 933mhz system spare which could be used, but I would need a new ATX case, new PSU. oh and a SATA controller too. So you're looking well over £100. oh yeah would need new CPU cooler, as stock fan is really loud.

Thinking about getting another NAS with Slimserver on and just the music collection, saves me having the HTPC on.

As for speed, copying 1GB to the NAS over the LAN takes 2 minutes.

Your talking about spending that £100 once, then after that its jsut the prioce of the hds, so like i originaly said it does work out cheaper, especialy in the long term, and as i siad plus the freedom to run any software you desire on it, even two servers, 3 servers ect ect. but i guess its a personal thing, i woud much rather spend the say £150 once, then jsut spend money on getting more hds.

squiffy · 18 Mar 2007 at 02:19

I have 600GB of storage on my NAS. Plenty there. I have no need to add more drives.
Desktop has another 600GB of storage, and the HTPC has a single drive, 60GB 2.5"

I can understand what you're saying, but at the end of the day a NAS is a smaller unit, lower noise, lower power consumption, and relatively cheap. If you do need several TB (storing DVD-Videos in lossless video) then I agree a PC server is the better choice.

DataVampire · 18 Mar 2007 at 02:28

squiffy said:
I have 600GB of storage on my NAS. Plenty there. I have no need to add more drives.
Desktop has another 600GB of storage, and the HTPC has a single drive, 60GB 2.5"

I can understand what you're saying, but at the end of the day a NAS is a smaller unit, lower noise, lower power consumption, and relatively cheap. If you do need several TB (storing DVD-Videos in lossless video) then I agree a PC server is the better choice.

I just looked up the price of what you have, all i can say is ouch, i coudl buy a nice small brand new p4 base system, but i guess smaller is sometimes better.

squiffy · 18 Mar 2007 at 02:46

DataVampire said:
I just looked up the price of what you have, all i can say is ouch, i coudl buy a nice small brand new p4 base system, but i guess smaller is sometimes better.

But that P4 system draws a lot of power, a NAS box doesn't. The DNS-323 is £165. To get that P3 running

£50 PSU
£40 SATA controller
£50 case
£20 CPU fan, if you can even find one (378)

That's more than the D-link. The size of the unit will be at least a midi ATX tower.

If you have a 750GB then you can buy a single bay NAS. I've seen some IDE NAS enclosures for £50, if they work ok than that's great value for money.