Linux hardware - NAS combination

retsil · Oct 16th 2008

I'm looking at using a diskless x86 client to install the linux version of conquest. We've had problems with transfer speeds using Samba NAS devices. It can take days just to delete a directory tree with a million entries. I'm hoping to find using a NFS NAS in combination with linux conquest a lot more manageable. I was quite surprised that very few NAS devices offer NFS, even though most of them run linux (I presume that it would just be a security risk, particularly when they are marketed for home users)

Any recommendations for a good combination? I would prefer an x86 client so that I can install a standard (and familiar) linux distro.

x86 client
http://www.norhtec.com/products/mcjr/index.html

NAS device
http://www.qnap.com/pro_detail_software.asp?p_id=85

jasonslan · Oct 16th 2008

pick up one of these http://www.adaptec.com/en-US/s…cp_sataii_raid/ICP9087MA/
and download and install http://www.freenas.org/

finding an appliance that supports NFS probably is not realistic.. but you can build your own, or just use that card and stick it in your Linux box and fill it up with drives.
if you need more disk space, build a freenas box and keep growing..

markpearson · Oct 17th 2008

If you want to be a bit more adventurous, most of the NAS devices use variations on the ARM chips and run conquest/mysql quite well.

I have just replaced a NSLU2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSLU2 with an external usb HDD that ran for about 2 years with a DNS323 http://wiki.dns323.info/ with 2 internal SATA drives. Both systems can use the debian-arm distribution which means you can install the gcc compiler, mysql, postgresql, apache etc although it is more of a challenge for the DNS323 which requires a special cable for serial port access.

Compiling dgate on the NSLU2 took more than 30 minutes compared to under 1 minute for my desktop so I first thought performance might be unacceptably slow but I was surprised that the transfer speeds were quite reasonable. The DNS323 has twice the memory (64MB) and runs even better.

I can post more details if anyone is interested.

retsil · Oct 17th 2008

There are a few reasons why I'm considering a separating the NAS and DICOM server. It seems to be a model which my boss in favour of. We particularly like being able to store image in part 10 format on a 3rd party device. It is slower, but it is also pretty hard to stuff up. If the conquest server and the NAS are on the same device, then the whole thing becomes a black box. For example we may not be able to upgrade the NAS software without recompiling conquest. We may also want to migrate to a larger storage device without having to reconfigure conquest.

Interestingly we've *tried* other commercial DICOM servers, and many of them do not support having images on a NAS.

I think conquest is great. I've just had a few teething problems, that's all. I'm also getting used to the issues which come along with storing large amounts of data.

Linux hardware - NAS combination

Participate now!

Share